Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 3

दार्शनिक विद्वानोंके चार मत हैं --,1 -- काम्यानां कर्मणां न्यासं संन्यासं कवयो विदुः -- कई विद्वान् कहते हैं कि काम्यकर्मोंके त्यागका नाम संन्यास है अर्थात् इष्टकी प्राप्ति और अनिष्टकी निवृत्तिके लिये जो कर्म किये जाते हैं? उनका त्याग करनेका नाम संन्यास है।
2 -- सर्वकर्मफलत्यागं प्राहुस्त्यागं विचक्षणाः -- कई विद्वान् कहते हैं कि सम्पूर्ण कर्मोंके फलकी इच्छाका त्याग करनेका नाम त्याग है अर्थात् फल न चाहकर कर्तव्यकर्मोंको करते रहनेका नाम त्याग है।
3 -- त्याज्यं दोष (टिप्पणी प0 870.1) वदित्येके कर्म प्राहुर्मनीषिणः -- कई विद्वान् कहते हैं कि सम्पूर्ण कर्मोंको दोषकी तरह छोड़ देना चाहिये।
4 -- यज्ञदानतपःकर्म न त्याज्यमिति चापरे -- अन्य विद्वान् कहते हैं कि दूसरे सब कर्मोंका भले ही त्याग कर दें? पर यज्ञ? दान और तपरूप कर्मोंका त्याग नहीं करना चाहिये।उपर्युक्त चारों मतोंमें दो विभाग दिखायी देते हैं -- पहला और तीसरा मत संन्यास(सांख्ययोग) का है तथा दूसरा और चौथा मत त्याग(कर्मयोग) का है। इन दो विभागोंमें भी थोड़ाथोड़ा अन्तर है। पहले मतमें केवल काम्यकर्मोंका त्याग है और तीसरे मतमें कर्ममात्रका त्याग है। ऐसे ही दूसरे मतमें कर्मोंके फलका त्याग है और चौथे मतमें यज्ञ? दान और तपरूप कर्मोंके त्यागका निषेध है।दार्शनिकोंके उपर्युक्त चार मतोंमें क्याक्या कमियाँ हैं और उनकी अपेक्षा भगवान्के मतमें क्याक्या विलक्षणताएँ हैं? इसका विवेचन इस प्रकार है --,1 -- काम्यानां कर्मणां न्यासं संन्यासम् -- संन्यासके इस पहले मतमें केवल काम्यकर्मोंका त्याग बताया गया है परन्तु इसके अलावा भी नित्य? नैमित्तिक आदि आवश्यक कर्तव्यकर्म बाकी रह जाते हैं (टिप्पणी प0 870.2)। अतः यह मत पूर्ण नहीं है क्योंकि इसमें न तो कर्तृत्वका त्याग बताया है और न स्वरूपमें स्थिति ही बतायी है। परन्तु भगवान्के मतमें कर्मोंमें कर्तृत्वाभिमान नहीं रहता और स्वरूपमें स्थिति हो जाती है जैसे -- इसी अध्यायके सत्रहवें श्लोकमें जिसमें अहंकृतभाव नहीं है और जिसकी बुद्धि कर्मफलमें लिप्त नहीं होती -- ऐसा कहकर कर्तृत्वाभिमानका त्याग बताया है और अगर वह सम्पूर्ण प्राणियोंको मार दे? तो भी न मारता है? न बँधता है -- ऐसा कहकर स्वरूपमें स्थिति बतायी है।
2 -- त्याज्यं दोषवदित्येके -- संन्यासके इस दूसरे मतमें सब कर्मोंको दोषकी तरह छोड़नेकी बात है। परन्तु सम्पूर्ण कर्मोंका त्याग कोई कर ही नहीं सकता (गीता 3। 5) और कर्ममात्रका त्याग करनेसे जीवननिर्वाह भी नहीं हो सकता (गीता 3। 8)। इसलिये भगवान्ने नित्य कर्मोंका स्वरूपसे त्याग करनेको राजसतामस त्याग बताया है (18। 78)।
3 -- सर्वकर्मफलत्यागम् -- त्यागके इस पहले मतमें केवल फलका त्याग बताया है। यहाँ फलत्यागके अन्तर्गत केवल कामनाके त्यागकी ही बात आयी है (टिप्पणी प0 871.1)। ममताआसक्तिके त्यागकी बात इसके अन्तर्गत नहीं ले सकते क्योंकि ऐसा लेनेपर दार्शनिकों और भगवान्के मतोंमें कोई अन्तर नहीं रहेगा। भगवान्के मतमें कर्मकी आसक्ति और फलकी आसक्ति -- दोनोंके ही त्यागकी बात आयी है -- सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा फलानि च (गीता 18। 6)।
4 -- यज्ञदानतपःकर्म न त्याज्यम् -- त्याग अर्थात् कर्मयोगके इस दूसरे मतमें यज्ञ? दान और तपरूप कर्मोंका त्याग न करनेकी बात है। परन्तु इन तीनोंके अलावा वर्ण? आश्रम? परिस्थिति आदिको लेकर जितने कर्म आते हैं? उनको करने अथवा न करनेके विषयमें कुछ नहीं कहा गया है -- यह इसमें अधूरापन है। भगवान्के मतमें इन कर्मोंका केवल त्याग ही नहीं करना चाहिये? प्रत्युत इनको न करते हों? तो जरूर करना चाहिये और इनके अतिरिक्त तीर्थ? व्रत आदि कर्मोंको भी फल एवं आसक्तिका त्याग करके करना चाहिये (18। 56)।
सम्बन्ध -- पीछेके दो श्लोकोंमें दार्शनिक विद्वानोंके चार मत बतानेके बाद अब भगवान् आगेके तीन श्लोकोंमें पहले त्यागके विषयमें अपना मत बताते हैं।

कितने ही सांख्यादि मतावलम्बी पण्डितजन कहते हैं कि जिसमें दोष हो वह दोषवत् है। वह क्या है कि बन्धनके हेतु होनेके कारण सभी कर्म दोषयुक्त हैं? इसलिये कर्म करनेवाले कर्माधिकारी मनुष्योंके लिये भी वे त्याज्य हैं? अथवा जैसे रागद्वेष आदि दोष त्यागे जाते हैं? वैसे ही समस्त कर्म भी त्याज्य हैं। इसी विषयमें दूसरे विद्वान कहते हैं कि यज्ञ? दान और तपरूप कर्म त्याग करनेयोग्य नहीं हैं। ये सब विकल्प? कर्म करनेवाले कर्माधिकारियोंको लक्ष्य करके ही किये गये हैं। समस्त भोगोंसे विरक्त ज्ञाननिष्ट? संन्यासियोंको लक्ष्य करके नहीं। ( अभिप्राय यह कि ) सांख्ययोगियोंकी निष्ठा ज्ञानयोगके द्वारा मैं पहले कह चुका हूँ इस प्रकार जो,( संन्यासी ) कर्माधिकारसे अलग कर दिये गये हैं उनके विषयमें यहाँ कोई विचार नहीं करना है। पू0 -- कर्मयोगियोंकी निष्ठा कर्मयोगसे कही गयी है इस कथनसे जिनकी निष्ठाका विभाग पहले किया जा चुका है? उन कर्माधिकारियोंके सम्बन्धमें जिस प्रकार यहाँ गीताशास्त्रके उपसंहारप्रकरणमें फिर विचार किया जाता है? वैसे ही? सांख्यनिष्ठावाले संन्यासियोंके विषयमें भी तो किया जाना उचित ही है। उ0 -- नहीं? क्योंकि उनका त्याग मोह या दुःखके निमित्तसे होनेवाला नहीं हो सकता। ( भगवान्ने क्षेत्राध्यायमें ) इच्छा और द्वेष आदिको शरीरके ही धर्म बतलाया है इसलिये सांख्यनिष्ठ संन्यासी शारीरिक पीड़ाके निमित्तसे होनेवाले दुःखोंको आत्मामें नहीं देखते। अतः वे शारीरिक क्लेशजन्य दुःखके भयसे कर्म नहीं छोड़ते। तथा वे आत्मामें कर्मोंका अस्तित्त्व भी नहीं देखते? जिससे कि उनके द्वारा मोहसे नियत कर्मोंका परित्याग किया जा सकता हो। सारे कर्म गुणोंके हैं? मैं कुछ भी नहीं करता ऐसा समझकर ही वे कर्मसंन्यास करते हैं? क्योंकि सब कर्मोंको मनसे त्यागकर इत्यादि वाक्योंद्वारा तत्त्वज्ञानियोंके संन्यासका प्रकार ( ऐसा ही ) बतलाया गया है। अतः जो अन्य आत्मज्ञानरहित कर्माधिकारी मनुष्य हैं जिनके द्वारा मोहपूर्वक या शारीरिक क्लेशके भयसे कर्मोंका त्याग किया जाना सम्भव है? वे ही तामस और राजस त्यागी हैं। ऐसा कहकर? आत्मज्ञानरहित कर्माधिकारियोंके कर्मफलत्यागकी स्तुति करनेके लिये? उन राजसतामस त्यागियोंकी निन्दा की जाती है। क्योंकि सर्वारम्भपरित्यागी मौनी संतुष्टो येन केनचित् अनिकेतः स्थिरमतिः इत्यादि विशेषणोंसे ( बारहवें अध्यायमें ) और गुणातीतके लक्षणोंमें भी यथार्थ संन्यासीको पृथक् करके कहा गया है? तथा,ज्ञानकी जो परानिष्ठा है इस प्रकरणमें भी यही बात कहेंगे? इसलिये यहाँ यह विवेचन ज्ञाननिष्ठ संन्यासियोंके विषयमें नहीं है। कर्मफलत्याग ( रूपसंन्यास ) ही सात्त्विकतारूप गुणसे युक्त होनेके कारण यहाँ तामसराजस त्यागकी अपेक्षा गौणरूपसे संन्यास कहा जाता है। यह ( सात्त्विक त्याग ) सर्वकर्मसंन्यासरूप मुख्य संन्यास नहीं,है। पू0 -- न हि देहभृता इत्यादि हेतुयुक्त कथनसे यह पाया जाता है कि स्वरूपसे सर्वकर्मोंका संन्यास असम्भव है? अतः कर्मफलत्याग ही मुख्य संन्यास है। उ0 -- यह कहना ठीक नहीं? क्योंकि यह हेतुयुक्त कथन कर्मफलत्यागकी स्तुतिके लिये है। जिस प्रकार पूर्वोक्त अनेक साधनोंका अनुष्ठान करनेमें असमर्थ और आत्मज्ञानरहित अर्जुनके लिये विहित होनेके कारण,त्यागाच्छान्तिरनन्तरम् यह कहना कर्मफलत्यागकी स्तुतिमात्र है। वैसे ही न हि देहभृता शक्यम् यह कहना भी कर्मफलत्यागकी स्तुतिके लिये ही है। क्योंकि सब कर्मोंको मनसे छो़ड़कर न करता हुआ और न कराता हुआ रहता है इस पक्षका अपवाद? किसीके द्वारा भी दिखलाया जाना सम्भव नहीं है। सुतरां यह संन्यास और त्यागसम्बन्धी विकल्प? कर्माधिकारियोंके विषयमें ही है। जो यथार्थ ज्ञानी सांख्ययोगी हैं? उनका केवल सर्वकर्मसंन्यासरूप ज्ञाननिष्ठामें ही अधिकार है? अन्यत्र नहीं? अतः वे विकल्पके पात्र नहीं हैं। यही सिद्धान्त हमने वेदाविनाशिनम् इस श्लोककी व्याख्यामें और तीसरे अध्यायके आरम्भमें सिद्ध किया है।

To strengthen the stated position that 'abandoning Kamya actions, Nitya and Naimittika actions are to be done without desire for fruit' by refuting the counter-position, he states the divergence of views — 'Tyajyam'. He states the cause for all action possessing defect — 'Bandha' etc. 'Doshavat' (like a defect) — he explains this as an example — 'Athava' etc.

Doubting that action is to be abandoned only by non-performers unqualified for action, because for performers there is sin in abandoning it, he says — 'Adhikṛtānām' etc. Indeed, even for them, there is no sin in abandoning action; the sin is rather in the performance of action involving violence etc., this is the idea. The word 'iti' marks the conclusion of the Sankhya etc. view. He states the Mimamsaka view — 'Tatraiva' etc. Meaning, among those qualified for action only. Action means Nitya and Naimittika.

Doubting that the alternatives shown by verses starting 'Of Kamya actions...' apply to performers, non-performers, qualified and unqualified, he says — 'Karmiṇaḥ' etc. He states what is excluded by the word 'eva' — 'Na tu' etc. He clarifies that same thing — 'Jñāna' etc.

Doubting that just as those qualified for action, despite being mentioned before as having a commitment distinct from commitment to knowledge, are to be considered again in the conclusion of the scripture's meaning, so too the consideration of those committed to knowledge is not contradictory here — 'Nanu' etc. He answers that the Sankhyas, committed to supreme knowledge, are not considered here — 'Na teṣām' etc. Is it not that they too, seeing affliction and pain in themselves, and in accordance with that, since abandonment of Rajasic action is established, are to be considered? He says — 'Na kāya' etc. There he makes the statement from the Kshetra chapter the reason — 'Icchādīnām' etc. While affliction etc. are not perceived in themselves by the Sankhyas etc., he states the resultant meaning — 'Ataḥ' etc. Even if they do not see affliction etc., since they see actions in themselves, their abandonment is proper because they cause bodily affliction etc. — he says this is not so — 'Nāpi' etc. Thinking that the ignorant might abandon even prescribed action due to the power of delusion, but not the knowers of Truth, because due to the non-perception of action in themselves there is no cause for its abandonment, he says — 'Mohāt' etc.

Then how is there 'Sannyasa' (abandonment) for them who do not see actions in the Self, in the absence of attainment [of action]? To that he says — 'Guṇānām' etc. Reminding that the abandonment of actions obtained through non-discrimination is [the Sannyasa] of knowers of Truth, he refutes the prohibition of the unobtained — 'Sarva' etc. As knowers of Truth are not to be considered here, he states the resultant meaning — 'Tasmāt' etc. 'Those alone who are knowers of the non-Self' — is the connection in the answer.

He shows the possibility of abandonment of action for those qualified for action who are knowers of the non-Self — 'Yeṣāṃ ca' etc. Doubting where their censure is useful, he says — 'Karmiṇām' etc. Moreover, since supreme Sannyasis are found to be praiseworthy, they are not the subject of censure, he says — 'Sarva' etc. Moreover, since commitment to knowledge is going to be spoken of here also by 'As having attained perfection...' etc., those possessing it are not considered here, he says — 'Vakṣyati' etc. He concludes that only those qualified for action are intended here, not those committed to knowledge — 'Tasmāt' etc.

Doubting that since the renunciation of all actions is to be grasped by the word 'Sannyasa', such Sannyasis appear to be intended here — [he says] 'Karma' etc. Doubting that by the word 'Sannyasa', only the primary Sannyasa should be grasped because between secondary and primary, the understanding of the effect lies in the primary, otherwise due to the futility of stating the reason in its impossibility and due to prohibition of the unobtained — 'Sarva' etc. He refutes this saying 'No' etc., because this statement of reason is not to establish the possibility of renunciation of all actions, but is intent on praising the renunciation of the fruit of action. He clarifies this very thing with an example — 'Yathā' etc.

Doubting why the literal meaning should not apply even in the example, he says — 'Yathokta' etc. For, liberation is not proper from mere renunciation of fruit without knowledge, because it would contradict Shruti and Smriti establishing liberation as dependent solely on knowledge, and because the ordination of means of knowledge immediately after by 'Adveṣṭā' etc. would be meaningless; therefore, only the praise of Tyaga is to be grasped here, this is the meaning. He joins the meaning in the example to the subject — 'Tathā' etc.

Doubting why it cannot be the literal meaning itself due to the intention of an exception to the previously stated view, he says 'Not so' due to the absence of a reason for that exception — 'Na sarva' etc. And this statement of reason is not an exception to that, because its being established otherwise has been stated, this is the idea. Doubting how the option of Sannyasa and Tyaga has scope if the exception of primary Sannyasa is impossible, he says — 'Tasmāt' etc.

Since the stated options are not applicable to those committed to knowledge, where is their qualification? To that he says — 'Ye tu' etc. Since Sannyasis are unfit for the option, and their qualification only in commitment to knowledge has been established in many places, there is no need for it to be established [again], he says — 'Tathā' etc.

'Abandoning Kamya actions, Nitya and Naimittika actions are to be done without desire for fruit' — to strengthen this stated position by refuting the counter-position, he states the divergence of views — 'Tyajyam'. 'Doshavat' means it has a defect, because it is the cause of bondage. All action is 'Tyajyam', to be abandoned; or like a defect — as attachment etc. is abandoned — so it is to be abandoned. 'Eke' — the thinkers, wise, learned, resorting to the Sankhya view — say that all action is to be abandoned even by qualified performers.

Question: How do they say that abandonment of action is productive of sin for qualified performers? Answer: Understand that in the abandonment of action involving violence etc., the absence of sin for them, and in its performance the supreme sin, is intended.

'Apare' — resorting to the Mimamsaka view — say sacrifice, charity, and austerity action is not to be abandoned; because by the prohibition of violence other than the violence prescribed by injunctions like 'One kills the animal for Agni and Soma', the sentence 'One should not kill all beings' has meaningfulness, so action prescribed by injunction does not bring sin; rather, in the abandonment of the prescribed is the sin, therefore all action is not to be abandoned.

These alternatives are regarding the qualified performers only, not the knowers of Truth who have renounced all possessions. Excluding the Sannyasis freed from qualification for action as in 'The commitment of Sankhyas is by Yoga of Knowledge, spoken by Me'.

Question: Just as 'Of Yogis by Yoga of action' — the qualified ones performing action, though having divided commitment previously, are considered here in the chapter concluding the scripture, so too let the Sankhyas established in knowledge be considered. And thus, 'these alternatives are excluding Sannyasis' is unjustified? Answer: No, action 'of the Gunas'. Because it is impossible to say that those who do not see actions in the Self as in 'I do not do anything at all', seeing them only as properties of the field (Kshetra), abandon prescribed action out of delusion, or abandon action out of fear of bodily trouble and pain; thus abandonment caused by delusion or pain is not applicable to them.

And because the mode of Sannyasa of knowers of Truth has been stated by 'Renouncing all actions mentally he sits happily, the self-controlled one', 'The embodied one in the nine-gated city, neither acting nor causing to act', etc. Question: Since 'mentally' is said in the cited statement, is there no renunciation of physical actions etc.? Since it is qualified by 'all actions', is it of all? Answer: No. 'Of all mental [actions]' — that is its meaning. 'Abandoning the causes of operations of body etc., renouncing all other actions mentally' — if this is what is said by the Lord, is it not that 'while living' [total renunciation is impossible]? Answer: No. Because the qualification 'The embodied one sits in the nine-gated city' would be unjustified. Therefore, because the mode of Sannyasa of the knower of Truth is stated by the cited statements etc. And because abandonment caused by delusion etc. is impossible for them. For the praise of the renunciation of the fruit of action of the performers — the knowers of non-Self — those qualified for action, knowers of non-Self, for whom abandonment out of delusion and fear of bodily trouble is possible, are censured as Tamasic renouncers and Rajasic.

Because supreme Sannyasis are distinguished in the fourteenth, twelfth etc. by 'Equal in honor and dishonor, equal in sides of friend and enemy, renouncing all undertakings, he is called beyond Gunas', 'Equal in blame and praise, silent, content with whatever comes, homeless, steady-minded, full of devotion is the man dear to Me'. And because 'That which is the supreme consummation of knowledge' is going to be spoken.

Sannyasis established in knowledge are not intended here, but Sannyasis who are not knowers of Truth are praised by the quality of Sattva in comparison to Tamas etc. And one should not be deluded that 'this is the primary Sannyasa' by the statement of reason 'For it is not possible for a body-bearer to abandon actions entirely'. The statement of reason is for the purpose of praise, like 'From Tyaga, peace immediately follows', this is the summary.

Since 'Manishinah' (Wise men) is said, the prima facie view (Purva-paksha) is also indeed acceptable.

'Tyaga' (Renunciation) is intended in the sense of renunciation of fruit. Of sacrifice etc. in that view.

And He will say 'But he who is the renouncer of the fruit of action' [18.11]. Therefore, this view is one alone.

He states just these two sides — 'Tyajyam' etc. 'Eke' — the principal 'Manīṣiṇaḥ' — capable of controlling the mind, say that for men in whom the desire to know the Supreme Self has arisen, 'Doshavat' — just as attachment etc. are to be abandoned, so action is to be abandoned.

'Apare' (Others) say that sacrifice etc. is not to be abandoned by one desiring to know — this follows. And accordingly, two types of Shrutis are found — 'Not by action, not by progeny, nor by wealth, but by Tyaga alone some attained immortality', 'Doing actions indeed here one should wish to live a hundred years', etc.

These two sides correspond to the ignorant only. For the wise, since ignorance, the cause of engagement in actions, is destroyed, Tyaga is self-established; therefore neither the injunction of action nor the injunction of its abandonment applies to them.

As it is said — 'The Yogi does not abandon actions, he is abandoned by actions'.

'Eke manīṣiṇaḥ' — Kapilas and Vaidikas and those following their doctrine — say that all action like sacrifice etc. is to be abandoned by the seeker of liberation because it is binding 'like the defect' of attachment etc.

'Apare' (Other) learned men say that action like sacrifice etc. is not to be abandoned.

For the ignorant, the meaning of the word 'Tyaga' is merely the renunciation of fruit, not the renunciation of action; to confirm this very point by refuting other views, he shows the difference of opinion -- with 'Tyajyam' (To be abandoned...), etc. 'Doshavat' (Like a defect/fault) -- meaning, because it is binding due to possessing defects like violence etc., therefore all action is to be abandoned; thus say 'Eke' (some) Sankhya 'Manishinah' (wise men) -- this is the idea. 'Do not harm any being' -- this prohibition says that violence is the cause of evil for the Purusha. But the injunction in the context like 'Sacrifice the animal for Agni-Soma' states that violence is helpful to the sacrifice. Therefore, due to having different subjects, not being the object of the 'general-special' maxim (samanya-vishesha-nyaya), there is no relation of sublated and sublator. And since violence etc. is possible in all actions accomplished by material substances, all action is indeed to be abandoned. That has been stated -- 'The scriptural (means) is like the seen (means), for it is linked with impurity, decay, and excess' [Sankhyakarika 2]. Its meaning is -- the means is Jyotishtoma etc., that too like seen means, is 'heard sequentially' (anushruyate) from the teacher's recitation, so 'Anushrava' is Veda, known by that. There 'impurity' is violence, by that 'decay' (destruction of merit/fruit) occurs. And there is gradation in heavens generated by Agnihotra, Jyotishtoma etc. And the superiority of others indeed makes everyone miserable.

'Apare tu' (But others), the Mimamsakas, say that action like sacrifice etc. is not to be abandoned. This is the idea -- even though being for the sake of the sacrifice (kratvartha), this violence is to be performed by the person only; and even if done for another purpose, it is indeed a cause of sin for the person. For thus -- the injunction ordains the performance of the enjoined act for that purpose; because subsidiarity (sheshatva) is characterized by 'being for the sake of that' (tadarthya). But the prohibition does not thus expect 'being for the sake of that' of the prohibition; because it expects merely the occurrence (of the act). Otherwise, there would be the contingency of absence of fault in (prohibited acts) done out of ignorance, carelessness etc. So thus, due to being of the same subject, because the general scripture is sublated by the special one, there is no faultiness (in sacrificial violence), therefore obligatory action like sacrifice etc. is not to be abandoned; by this, the equal strength of injunction and prohibition is warded off, to accomplish the 'general-special' maxim.

Thus by the verse 'Of Kamya actions' [18.2], the contradiction was shown through the contradiction of fruit and its absence. Now by the verse 'Tyajyam doshavat', the dispute is displayed regarding the nature [of action] through connection with defect and its absence, via being productive of sin etc. — Even lawful violence is accepted as a defect by the Kapilas because it is prohibited. As stated by Isvarakrishna — 'Like the visible, the scriptural [means] is [impure], for it is impure, mixed with decay and excess'. And it is said by Acharya Panchashikha — 'A little mixture [of sin] is bearable, accompanied by removal [expiation]'.

Therefore, lawful violence will bring defect to the person? And it will assist the sacrifice, this is their view. Therefore, the disputants indicated generally by the word 'Eke' are specifically revealed by the force of the logical connection of the reason 'Doshavat' or by the force of the statement of the example named 'Dosha', he says — 'Kapilas and Vaidikas and followers of their view'. By this, the view of those arguing for the renunciation of the nature of all actions is also shown as being outside the Veda.

'Like the defect of attachment etc.' — Attachment etc. defects are binding, since this is agreed by all doctrinaires, it is an example. Or, action itself possesses defects like attachment etc., therefore it is binding, this is the intention. In this construction, the word 'adi' (etc.) includes violence etc. also.

'All action like sacrifice etc.' — Although the word Karma here has a general subject, due to the qualification in the other position 'Action of sacrifice, charity, and austerity is not to be abandoned', it concerns the subject enjoined by scripture; and there, due to the absence of a distinguisher and due to redundancy if it were about Kamya actions, it concerns the entire [scriptural] subject, this is the idea. Because if it were to be abandoned by all, there would be the contingency of invalidity of the scripture enjoining it, it is qualified by 'by the seeker of liberation'. The word 'Apara' here concerns the followers of His own view.

'Action of sacrifice, charity, and austerity is not to be abandoned, it is indeed to be done' [18.5] — He will state His own view, with this intention he says — 'Panditāḥ', meaning knowers of the truth of the division of what is to be abandoned and what is to be accepted.

पूर्व श्लोक में निश्चयात्मक रूप से कहा गया था कि त्याग साधन है और संन्यास साध्य है। सांख्य सिद्धांत के समर्थकों का इस त्याग के विषय में यह मत है कि समस्त कर्म दोषयुक्त होने के कारण त्याज्य हैं। उनके मतानुसार? सभी कर्म वासनाएं उत्पन्न करते हैं? जो आत्मा को आच्छादित कर देती है। अत कर्मों का सर्वथा त्याग करना चाहिए। परन्तु सांख्य दर्शन के कुछ व्याख्याकार कहते हैं कि केवल उन कर्मों का ही त्याग करना चाहिए? जो कामना और स्वार्थ से प्रेरित होते हैं न कि सभी कर्म त्याज्य हैं।तत्त्वचिन्तक मनीषी जनों का यह उपदेश है कि साधकों को काम्य और निषिद्ध कर्मों का त्याग और कर्तव्य कर्मों का पालन करना चाहिए। सत्कर्मों के आचरण से ही मनुष्य का चरित्र निर्माण होता है। इन व्याख्याकारों के अनुसार यज्ञ? दान और तपरूप कर्म त्याज्य नहीं हैं।गीता के अध्येताओं को यह ज्ञात होना चाहिए कि भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण अर्जुन को केवल दोषयुक्त कर्मों को ही त्यागने का उपदेश देते हैं। उनका मनुष्य को आह्वान है कि उसको कर्म के द्वारा ही ईश्वर की भक्ति करनी चाहिए। यह आध्यात्मिक साधना है। भगवान का निर्णय है कि अज्ञानी जनो को कर्म करने चाहिये। उपर्युक्त विकल्पों के विषय में वे कहते हैं

By 'Tyajyam doshavat', the 'rejectable' view of the Kapilas has been presented, so say some? That is false; with this idea he says — 'Manīṣiṇaḥ' etc. 'Purvapaksha' — the view presented first.

Question: Since it contradicts the Lord's view 'Action of sacrifice, charity, and austerity is not to be abandoned, it is indeed to be done' [18.5], how is this [view] acceptable? To this he says — 'Phalatyāgena' etc. Renunciation of sacrifice etc. is intended with the intention of renunciation of fruit; in that view, not by nature. Why? Because of the qualification 'Manīṣiṇaḥ' (wise) itself. Therefore, this is not opposed to the Lord's view.

Question: How is the word 'Karmatyaga' meaningful with the meaning 'renunciation of fruit'? To this he says — 'Yastu' etc.

Question: If this is so, then the non-contradiction of the two views presented in the first and second half follows? Answer: True; [thus] he says — 'Ataḥ' etc. Therefore, being the view of the wise, one (this view) is not contradictory. This presented [difference] in the first and second half, however, is raised as a divergence of views considering the perception 'up to sin' (or implied sin/defect), acting as a seed of doubt, this is the idea.

Now, to answer the second question, to describe the threefold nature of the meaning of the words Sannyasa and Tyaga, he states the divergence of views therein — 'Tyajyam' etc.

All action, being the cause of bondage, is 'Doshavat', faulty, therefore action is indeed to be abandoned even by those qualified for action, thus say 'Eke Manīṣiṇaḥ' (some wise men). Or 'Doshavat' — like a defect; just as a defect — attachment etc. — is abandoned, so action is to be abandoned even by those qualified for action who have not attained knowledge or the desire to know, such is the view of 'Eke'.

Here the second view is — Action of sacrifice, charity, and austerity is not to be abandoned by those qualified for action for the sake of arising of the desire to know through purification of the mind, thus say 'Apare Manīṣiṇaḥ' (other wise men).

Moreover — 'Tyajyam' etc. 'Eke' — Manasa īṣiṇaḥ (rulers of the mind) — 'Manīṣiṇaḥ' — discriminators — say that action 'Doshavat' — devoid of means like knowledge etc. — is to be abandoned, 'Prāhuḥ' — they say with emphasis, with authority etc.

'Apare' — the Karma-vadins, Mimamsakas — say that action of sacrifice, charity, and austerity is not to be abandoned; because it is ordained. 'Therefore they call sacrifice supreme' [Mahana. 17.10], 'Therefore they call charity supreme' [Mahana. 17.5], and 'Therefore they call austerity supreme' [Mahana. 17.5].

By this they speak of the lordship of action only, therefore they also do not know.

'Tyajyam' — to be abandoned; 'Doshavat' — it has a defect, thus doshavat. What is that? Action; all of it, because it is the cause of bondage. Or, defect — just as attachment etc. is abandoned, so it is to be abandoned — thus say 'Eke' regarding action, 'Manīṣiṇaḥ' — learned men, resorting to views like Sankhya etc. 'Of the qualified performers also' — is [implied]. 'Tatraiva' — Action of sacrifice, charity, and austerity is not to be abandoned — thus say 'Apare'.

Only performers are qualified; these alternatives are with regard to them; not with regard to Sannyasis who have risen above and are established in knowledge. 'The commitment of Sankhyas is by Yoga of Knowledge, spoken by Me previously' — thus those who are removed from qualification for action, regarding them there is no consideration.

Question: Just as 'Of Yogis by Yoga of action' [Gita 3.3] — the qualified ones, though having divided commitment previously, are considered here in the chapter concluding the meaning of all scriptures, so too let the Sankhyas established in knowledge be considered? Answer: No, because abandonment caused by delusion or pain is impossible for them. Sankhyas do not see pain caused by bodily trouble in the Self, because desire etc. have been shown as properties of the field (Kshetra). Therefore they do not abandon action out of fear of bodily trouble and pain. Nor do they see actions in the Self, such that they would abandon prescribed action out of delusion. Action 'of the Gunas', 'I do not do anything at all' — in this way indeed they renounce. By 'Renouncing all actions mentally' [Gita 5.13] etc., the mode of Sannyasa of knowers of Truth has been stated.

Therefore, those others qualified for action who are knowers of non-Self, and for whom abandonment caused by delusion is possible, and out of fear of bodily trouble, they alone are censured as Tamasic renouncers and Rajasic, for the purpose of praising the renunciation of fruit of action of the performers — the knowers of non-Self; because in 'Renouncing all undertakings' [Gita 14.25], 'Silent, content with whatever comes' [Gita 12.19], 'Homeless, steady-minded' [Gita 12.19] — thus in the characteristics of one beyond Gunas, the supreme Sannyasi is distinguished. And He will say 'That which is the supreme consummation of knowledge' [Gita 18.50]. Therefore, Sannyasis established in knowledge are not intended here. Renunciation of fruit of action alone is called 'Sannyasa' due to the quality of Sattva in comparison to Tamas etc., not the primary renunciation of all actions.

If you say — 'Since renunciation of all actions is impossible, by the statement of reason

'Eke' (Some) indeed say 'tyājyam doṣavat' (to be abandoned like a defect). Mere action (or all action) is to be abandoned because of possessing defects like violence etc., thus say 'eke'—the Sankhyas; [He] praises [them] as 'manīṣiṇaḥ' (wise) due to seeing the logic.

'Apare' (Others)—the Mimamsakas—say that action of sacrifice, charity, and austerity, though fruitful, is not to be abandoned because it is heard [in scripture]. Even though deluded, are they correct in one part? Because in some part they do not abandon the Veda.

Although the former ones also do not abandon [Veda], still, taking the apparent perception, it is presented thus; but in reality, when 'of Kamya actions' is said, the injunction 'of non-Kamya actions' is said by implication—with this idea, 'poetic wisdom' is stated in them.

And later 'vicakṣaṇāḥ' (clever/wise)—when 'like a defect' is said, [it implies] 'what is not like a defect is to be done', that wisdom is stated there.

त्याज्यम् should be abandoned? दोषवत् (full of) as an evil? इति thus? एके some? कर्म action? प्राहुः declare? मनीषिणः philosophers? यज्ञदानतपःकर्म acts of sacrifice? gift and austerity? न not? त्याज्यम् should be relinished? इति thus? च and? अपरे others.Commentary Some philosophers who follow the doctrine of the Sankhyas declare that all actions,should be abandoned as evil? even by those who are fit for Karma Yoga.Doshavat As an evil All Karmas should be abandoned as involving evil because they cause bondage or that they should be relinished like passion and other such evil tendencies.Others declare that the acts of sacrifice? gifts and austerities should not be given up by those who are fit for Karma Yoga. These are the opinions of some? who are of great understanding.Now listen to Me. I will settle this matter and will tell thee how renunciation should be practised.The subject of the discourse here is about the Karma Yogins only and not about those persons who have gone beyond the path of Karma. It is with reference to the Karma Yogins that these conflicting opinions are held and not with reference to the Jnana Yogins or the Sannyasins who have risen above all worldly concerns.

Eke, some; manisinah, learned ones, subscribing to the views of the Sankhyas and others; prahuh, say; that dosavat, beset with evil (as it is);-What is it?- karma, action, all actions, becuase they are the cause of bondage; tyajyam, should be given up even by those who are eligible for actions (rites and duties). Or, it (action) is to be given up dosavat, just as defects such as attachment etc. are renounced. Ca and, in that very context; apare, others; (say) that yajana-dana-tapah-karma, the practice of sacrifice, charity and auterity; na tyajyam, should not be given up.
These alternatives are with regard to only those who are alified for action, but not with regard to the monks who are steadfast in Knowledge and have gone beyond the stages of life. This discussion is not concerned with those who are held to be outside the scope of eligibility for action in the assertion (by the Lord), 'The steadfastness in the Yoga of Knowledge by men of realization was spoken of by Me in the days of yore' (see 3.3).
Objection: Well, just as those who are alified for rites and duties and who have their distinct steadfastness are being considered here in the chapter summarizing the entire scripture, though they have been dealt with earlier in '৷৷.through the Yoga of Action for the yogis' (3.3), similarly, let even the men of realization who are steadfast in Knowledge be considered here.
Reply: No, because it is not logical that their renunciation should result from delusion and sorrow (cf. 7 and 8). The men of realization do not perceive in the Self the sorrows arising from physical torment; for it has been shown that desire etc. are attributes only of the field (body) (see 13.6). Therefore, they do not renounce action but of fear for physical trouble and pain. Nor do they perceive actions in the Self, on account of which they should give up obligatory duties out of delusion. In fact, they renounce with the conviction that 'action belongs to the organs' (see 3.28); 'I certainly do not do anything' (see 5.8); for, the mode of renunciation of an enlightened person was shown in, '৷৷.having given up all actions mentally' (5.13). Therefore, those others who are alified for rites and duties, who are unelightened about the Self, and for whom renunciation is possible out of delusion and from fear of physical trouble, are alone condemned as persons who, being possessed of tamas and rajas, resort to renunciation. And this is done with a veiw to eulogizing the renunciation of the results of rites and duties by the unenlightened men of action.
Besides, the men of renunciation in the real sense have been particularly pointed out in, 'who has renounced ever undertaking,' 'who is silent, content with anything, homeless, steadyminded' (12.16, 19), and also (while determining) the characteristics of one who has transcended the gunas (Chapter 14). The Lord will further say, '৷৷.which is the supreme consummation of Knowledge' (50). Therefore the monks steadfast in Knowledge are not intended to be spoken of here. It is only the abandoning of the results of action which, by virtue of its being imbued with the ality of sattva, is spoken of as sannyasa in contrast to the renunciation of actions which is possessed of tamas etc.; it is not sannyasa in the primary-sense-the renunciation of all actions.
Objection: According to the reason shown in the text, 'Since it is not possible for one who holds on to a body to give up actions entirely' (11), may it not be argued that the actions entirely' (11), may it not be argued that the word sannyasa is certainly used in the primary sense because it is impossible to abandon all works?
Reply: No, for the next adducing the reason is meant for eulogy. Just as, 'From renunciation immediately (follows) Peace' (12.12), is a mere eulogy of renunciation of the fruits of action, it having been enjoined on Arjuna who was unenlightened and incapable of undertaking the various alternatives (paths) as stated earlier, so also is this sentence, 'Since it is not possible for one who holds on to a body to give up actions entirely' (11), meant for eulogizing the renunciation of the resorts of all actions. No one can point an exception to the proposition that 'having given up all actions mentally, (the embodied man of self-control) continues happily৷৷.without doing or causing (others) to do anything at all' (see 5.13). Therefore these alternative veiws regarding sannyasa and tyaga are concerned only with those who are alified for rites and duties. But the enlightened ones who have realized the supreme Truth are competent only for steadfastness in Knowledge, which is characterized by renunciation of all actions; not for anything else. Hence, they do not come within the purview of the alternative veiws. Thus has this been pointed out by us in connection with the text, '৷৷.he who knows this One as indestructible৷৷.' (2.21) as also in the beginning of the third chapter.

Some sages, viz., the adherents of Kapila and those Vaidikas who agree with his creed, contend that all acts such as sacrifices etc., should be renounced by aspirants for release, as they bind even as desires and other similar defects tend to bind. Other learned men say that acts like sacrifices etc., should not be renounced.