Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 4

निश्चयं श्रृणु मे तत्र त्यागे भरतसत्तम -- हे भरतवंशियोंमें श्रेष्ठ अर्जुन अब मैं संन्यास और त्याग -- दोनोंमेंसे पहले त्यागके विषयमें अपना मत कहता हूँ? उसको तुम सुनो।त्यागो हि पुरुषव्याघ्र त्रिविधः संप्रकीर्तितः -- हे पुरुषव्याघ्र त्याग तीन तरहका कहा गया है -- सात्त्विक? राजस और तामस। वास्तवमें भगवान्के मतमें सात्त्विक त्याग ही त्याग है परन्तु उसके साथ राजस और तामस त्यागका भी वर्णन करनेका तात्पर्य यह है कि उसके बिना भगवान्के अभीष्ट सात्त्विक त्यागकी श्रेष्ठता स्पष्ट नहीं होती क्योंकि परीक्षा या तुलना करके किसी भी वस्तुकी श्रेष्ठता सिद्ध करनेके लिये दूसरी वस्तुएँ सामने रखनी ही पड़ती हैं।तीन प्रकारका त्याग बतानेका तात्पर्य यह भी है कि साधक सात्त्विक त्यागको ग्रहण करे और राजस तथा तामस त्यागका त्याग करे।

इन विकल्पभेदोंमें --, हे भरतवंशियोंमें श्रेष्ठतम अर्जुन उस पूर्वदर्शित त्यागके विषयमें? अर्थात् त्यागसंन्यास सम्बन्धी विकल्पोंके विषयमें? तू मेरा निश्चय सुन? अर्थात् मेरे वचनोंसे कहा हुआ तत्त्व भली प्रकार समझ। त्याग और संन्यासशब्दका जो वाच्यार्थ है वह एक ही है? इस अभिप्रायसे केवल त्यागके नामसे ही,( प्रश्नका ) उत्तर देते हैं। हे पुरुषसिंह ( उस ) त्यागका शास्त्रोंमें तामस आदि तीन प्रकारके भेदोंसे भली प्रकार निरूपण किया गया है। जिससे कि आत्मज्ञानरहित कर्माधिकारी -- कर्मी पुरुषका ही त्यागसंन्यासशब्दका वाच्यार्थ ( संन्यास ) तामस आदि भेदोंसे तीन प्रकारका होना सम्भव है? परमार्थज्ञानी नहीं यह अभिप्राय समझमें आना बड़ा कठिन है? इसलिये इस विषयमें यथार्थ तत्त्व बतलानेको दूसरा कोई समर्थ नहीं है? अतः तू मुझ ईश्वरका शास्त्रोंके यथार्थ अभिप्रायसे युक्त निश्चय सुन।

Even though the stated option applies only to those qualified for action, how is the determination established? To that, he says — 'Tatra' etc. To show that very determination, first he states the intermediate division regarding Tyaga — 'Tyāgo hi' etc.

Objection: Since both Tyaga and Sannyasa are equally the subject, by stating the intermediate division of Tyaga only, Sannyasa would happen to be neglected? He says 'No' — 'Tyāga' etc.

In the stated meaning of Sattvic, Rajasic, and Tamasic, even given the threefold nature, since determination by oneself is impossible, what is the use of the Lord's determination here? Doubting thus, he says — 'Yasmāt' etc.

Because of the non-determination of truth in the division spoken by anyone other than the Lord, the Lord's determination is to be heard, thus he concludes — 'Tasmāt' etc.

Thus, having stated separately the truth of the meanings of the words Sannyasa and Tyaga through difference of opinion, to show His intended unity of the two, He says — 'Niścayam'. 'Tatra tyāge' — in the option of Tyaga and Sannyasa; 'me' — from My words; 'niścayam' — determination; 'śṛṇu' — listen/ascertain. Intending that the meaning expressed by Tyaga and Sannyasa is one indeed, He says.

'Tyāgaḥ trividhaḥ' — threefold, of three kinds by types like Tamasic etc.; 'saṃprakīrtitaḥ' — well stated in the scriptures. 'Hi' — because the meaning expressed by the words Tyaga and Sannyasa for the qualified performer who is a knower of non-Self is proclaimed in scriptures as threefold by divisions of Tamasic etc., it is impossible to be spoken by anyone other than the Lord, the knower of all scriptures.

Therefore, in this matter difficult to understand, listen to the divine determination regarding the supreme scriptural meaning. Addressing as 'Sattama' — O best — among 'Bharatas' — the best of Kshatriyas, He implies: Listen to the determination spoken by Me regarding Tyaga and Sannyasa to be done by best of Kshatriyas.

Not only is the determination regarding the meaning of Tyaga and Sannyasa to be done by best of Kshatriyas spoken by Me, but also in that to be done by other best men qualified for action and ignorant — implying this, He addresses as 'Puruṣavyāghra' (O tiger among men).

And He states the mode of that — by 'Niścayam' etc. The variety of sacrifice was stated by 'Material sacrifices' [4.28] etc. In charity, the gift of fearlessness is included. The meaning is that among these, whatever sacrifice etc. [is appropriate] must indeed be done.

Otherwise, there would be contradiction with Vyasa Smriti like 'A Brahmachari, householder, Vanaprastha, and likewise a Yati (ascetic); if he wishes to stand in liberation, he should resort to the highest Ashrama'.

For they are possessors of knowledge-sacrifice, charity of knowledge and fearlessness, and austerity like celibacy etc. Therefore, the word which appears otherwise should be applied according to difference in qualification. Otherwise, because of the lack of a way for others.

'Niścayam'. 'Tatra' — since there is a dispute regarding the subject of Tyaga due to [the phrase] 'abandonment of actions', regarding the subject of Tyaga mentioned first, listen to the determination 'me' — from My words.

'Hi' — because, O tiger among men? 'Tyāgaḥ trividhaḥ' — is threefold by division of Sattvic, Rajasic, and Tamasic, 'parikīritaḥ' — proclaimed in scripture.

Renunciation of action preceded by firm dispassion is Sattvic; abandoning it out of fear of trouble is Rajasic; abandoning it out of delusion is Tamasic.

Therefore, due to being deep, Tyaga is to be considered with determination, this is the meaning.

'Tatra' — in Tyaga thus disputed by disputants, listen to the determination regarding Tyaga 'me' — from Me.

'Tyāga' — in Vedic actions being done indeed, regarding fruit, regarding action, and regarding agency, has indeed ('hi') been 'saṃprakīrtitaḥ' (proclaimed) by Me before as threefold — 'Renouncing all actions in Me with mind centered on the Self, free from hope and free from mineness, fight, free from fever' [Gita 3.30].

'May the fruit like heaven born of action not be mine' — this is renunciation of fruit. 'This action is mine as a means to my fruit' — abandoning the mineness in action thus is 'Tyaga regarding action'. Abandonment of self-agency by contemplating agency in the Supreme Lord is 'Tyaga regarding agency'.

Thus having presented the difference of opinions, to state His own view He says — 'Niścayam' etc.

'Tatra' — in Tyaga thus disputed, listen to the determination from My words.

Do not disregard thinking 'Since Tyaga is well known in the world, what is there to be heard here?', [so] He says — 'O Puruṣavyāghra' — O best of men? This Tyaga is difficult to understand.

'Hi' — because this abandonment of action is proclaimed by knowers of truth as threefold by division of Tamasic etc. with proper discrimination.

And He will state the threefold nature by 'But renunciation of prescribed action...' [18.7] etc.

The word 'Tatra' is indicative of the doubtfulness of the subject of application of logic through restating the subject of dispute in the context, with this intention he says — 'Thus disputed by disputants'.

By 'Me niścayam', to remove the doubt of arising of another view, he says — Listen to the determination regarding Tyaga from Me. 'Mattaḥ' — from Me, devoid of defects like delusion etc., is the meaning.

'Tyāgo hi' etc. is not about the subject of threefold nature of Sattvic Tyaga etc. that is going to be spoken, but about the subject of internal division of Sattvic Tyaga, because of the naturalness of 'saṃprakīrtitaḥ' (proclaimed) referring to what was said before. And because 'hi' implies the listener's agreement etc., with this intention he says — 'Tyaga in actions being done only' etc.

That one verse 'Mayi sarvāṇi' [3.30] is about threefold Tyaga; here to refute the performance without fruit and abandonment of nature (of action), and the doubt of Sankhya view, he distinguishes the nature of the three — by 'Karmajanya' etc.

'Madīyaphalasādhanatayā' etc. — 'The Lord engages [me] for His own purpose as a means to His own pleasure', this indeed is the contemplation of the seeker of liberation, this is the idea. Contemplation of agency in the Supreme Lord is through dependence of one's agency on Him and requirement of His permission etc. Abandonment of agency is the contemplation of one's own agency as instigated by another in the [world of] many agents — this will be clarified later.

इस श्लोक में भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण अर्जुन को वचन देते हैं कि वे त्याग के स्वरूप का सम्पूर्ण विवेचन करेंगे।सामान्य मनुष्य के लिए किसी प्रकार का भी त्याग करना सरल कार्य़ नहीं होता संचय और समृद्धि मानो मन के प्राण ही हैं। इसलिए? स्वाभाविक है कि अर्जुन के श्रेष्ठ गुणों को जागृत करने के लिए भगवान् उसे भरतसत्तम और पुरुषव्याघ्र कहकर सम्बोधित करते हैं।अध्ययन की दृष्टि से त्याग का तीन भागों में वर्गीकरण किया गया है। सम्पूर्ण गीता में यह त्रिविध वर्गीकरण पाया जाता है? और वे तीन वर्ग हैं सात्त्विक? राजसिक और तामसिक।भगवान् कहते हैं

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

Others, entered into the garb of Mimamsakas... 'For the purpose of sacrifice [violence] is understood from scripture'. And by the logic 'Therefore that which is Vedic violence...' etc., violence which is part of the procedure is not violence at all. Because the general scripture 'Do not kill' is annulled there, Syena etc. only is violence. 'And the affix of the bhāvanā is compliant in the part of the fruit'. Therefore one should not abandon others even if connected with violence etc. Those who take refuge solely in scripture for division of what is to be done and not done think they are 'Pandits'. ||3||

From 'Niścayam' etc. up to 'Abhidhīyate'. But there, this is the determination — due to the variety of nature of Gunas defined before, of Tyaga itself being done by mental modification made of Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, appearing with that specific nature... in reality, Tyaga is the performance of actions by knowers of Supreme Brahman with equanimity in success and failure etc., by avoiding attachment and aversion, by lack of desire for fruit. Therefore He says — having done Rajasic and Tamasic Tyaga, there is no connection with fruit [of Tyaga]. But from Sattvic Tyaga, the fruit is the protection of the meaning of scripture.

Again, for the sage who has abandoned the grasp of the collection of Gunas, the statement of 'Tyaga' in truth is reasonable.

Is it said so only by the force of the qualification 'Manīṣiṇaḥ'? But because the mode of non-contradiction with that is being explained by the Lord also — with this idea he states the purport of the next sentence — 'Tat' etc.

Objection: Since Paramahamsas lack sacrifice and charity, how is it said 'Not to be abandoned, indeed to be done' [18.5]? To that he says — 'Yajña' etc. Objection: Why not take only Jyotistoma etc. as sacrifice and charity of wealth etc. as charity, and refute the Paramahamsa stage itself? To that he says — 'Anyathā' (Otherwise) etc.

'Yati' — Hamsa etc. 'Āsthātum' — to attain. 'Uttamāśrama' — Paramahamsa stage.

Objection: Even in the explanation 'among these', how is sacrifice etc. possible for Paramahamsas? To that he says — 'Jñāna' etc. This is a Karmadharaya compound containing three Bahuvrihis. Those whose charity is regarding knowledge and fearlessness are such; they are Paramahamsas.

Objection: Priyavrata engaged in Paramahamsa stage was stopped by Hiranyagarbha, so it is said in Puranas [Bhag. 5.1.11-19]; so how is Paramahamsa stage a duty? To that he says — 'Ataḥ' etc. Since there is no contradiction with the said sentence... why shouldn't the Smriti be annulled by the Purana sentence itself, since there is no difference in being a sentence? [To that] he says — 'Anyathā' etc. If not applied thus, invalidity [of Smriti] regarding others like Brahmachari follows due to lack of another way — this is the remainder.

Thus by establishing the duty of sacrifice etc. even for Paramahamsas, this is also refuted, what was said by someone — 'This section proceeds regarding ignorant ones qualified for action, not Paramahamsa ascetics'.

'Niścayam'. Thus, in the dispute, in that Tyaga asked by you, performed by one qualified for action, expounded by the words Sannyasa and Tyaga, [which is] abandonment of action preceded by desire for fruit, listen to 'me' — My words, the determination made by previous teachers. 'O Bharatasattama'?

Is there anything difficult to know there? To that He says 'Puruṣa'. 'O Puruṣavyāghra' — best of men? 'Hi' — because Tyaga performed by one qualified for action, which is abandonment of action preceded by desire for fruit, is 'saṃprakīrtitaḥ' — proclaimed — as threefold, of three kinds by division of Tamasic etc.

Or Tyaga in the form of absence of specific things is proclaimed threefold due to absence of qualification (adjective), absence of qualificand (noun), and absence of both. To explain: Abandonment of desire for fruit even while action exists is one; abandonment of action even while desire for fruit exists is the second; abandonment of both desire for fruit and action is the third.

Among them, the first is Sattvic and acceptable; the second is rejectable, [and is] of two kinds — performed out of intelligence of pain it is Rajasic, performed out of error it is Tamasic. This much Tyaga performed by one qualified for action is the subject of Arjuna's question; but the third, performed by one not qualified for action, which is of the nature of attributelessness (Nirguna), is not the subject of Arjuna's question.

That too is of two kinds by the division of means and fruit. There, by the Sattvic Tyaga in the form of performance of action preceded by abandonment of desire for fruit, for one whose mind is pure and in whom the desire to know has arisen, the abandonment of action which is the means to that [purification] — once the purification of mind exists for the inquiry into Vedanta named 'Shravana' which is the means to Self-knowledge and is devoid of desire for fruit — like the abandonment of threshing once the unhusking is done — that one is called 'Vividisha-Sannyasa' (renunciation for the desire to know), which is the means; He will speak of it later by 'Naishkarmyasiddhim paramam' [18.49].

The second, however, due to the ripening of practice of means done in other births, for one in whom Self-knowledge has arisen at the very beginning of this birth, the accomplished one, the abandonment of desire for fruit and action which happens spontaneously is the result — that is called 'Vidvat-Sannyasa' (renunciation of the knower). That has been explained before by verses like 'But he who rejoices in the Self alone' [3.17] etc., and expanded in many ways by the characteristics of one of steady wisdom (Sthitaprajna) etc.

Since the truth of Tyaga is thus difficult to know and you said 'I wish to know the truth'; therefore know it from the words of Me, the Omniscient — this is the intention. By the two addresses, excellence due to lineage and excellence due to prowess are stated to indicate exceeding fitness.

Thus having stated the views of all due to their ignorance of truth, to give knowledge of truth amidst those views, He states His own view ascertained by those views — 'Niścayam'.

There, in Tyaga expounded in many ways by many, 'O Bharatasattama', worthy of hearing due to being born in a good lineage, listen to the 'niścayam' — determined truth — 'me' — from Me.

Thus making him attentive, He says — 'Tyāgaḥ'. 'O Puruṣavyāghra' — best of men; because a man is qualified for worship of the Lord, by stating best-ness among them, and by stating tiger-ness, indicating the capability to manifest manliness by action after hearing, He says — 'Tyāgo hi'.

Tyaga is 'niścayena' (definitely) 'samprakīrtitaḥ' — proclaimed — threefold, stated in the right manner.

'Nishcayam shrunu' (Hear the conclusion), ascertain, 'Me' (My) -- from My words; 'Tatra tyage' (There regarding renunciation) -- regarding the alternative of Tyaga and Sannyasa as shown; 'Bharatasattama' -- O best among the Bharatas. For Tyaga; the meaning expressed by the words Tyaga and Sannyasa is one indeed, intending this He says -- 'Tyago hi' (For renunciation indeed...).

'Purushavyaghra' (O tiger among men); 'Trividhah' -- threefold -- is 'samprakirtitah' (proclaimed) by Tamasic etc. modes, well stated in the Shastras. Since the meaning expressed by the words Tyaga and Sannyasa, through the divisions of Tamasic etc., is possible as threefold for the qualified ritualist who is ignorant of the Self; not for the seer of Supreme Truth; therefore this meaning is difficult to know; therefore no other person is capable of speaking the truth here.

Therefore 'Nishcayam' -- the conviction/conclusion regarding the meaning of the supreme scripture -- the Divine one, 'Me' (from Me) hear. What again is that conclusion? He says --

Thus indeed is the Scriptural decision; [since] they do not ascertain that, He states the decision Himself — 'Niścayam śṛṇu' (Listen to the determination).

If that very Tyaga is done otherwise, it would be secondary, so He says. Proclaimed as threefold — Tamasic, Rajasic, and Sattvic.

Or in 'Renouncing all actions in Me' [3.30], 'Nirāśīḥ' means void of desire, 'Nirmama' means devoid of mineness regarding fruit and action; thus renouncing — offering actions to Me, contemplating agency of them in Me, 'I do this by the power dependent on Him' — the abandonment of agency, mineness, and fruits in actions performed with this intellect is Sannyasa.

निश्चयम् conclusion or the final truth? श्रृणु hear? मे My? तत्र there? त्यागे about abandonment? भरतसत्तम O best of the Bharatas? त्यागः abandonment? हि verily? पुरुषव्याघ्र O best of men? त्रिविधः of three kinds? संप्रकीर्तितः has been declared (to be).Commentary Now the Lord gives His own decisive opinion. It is declared in the scriptures that renunciation is of three kinds? viz.? Sattvic? Rajasic and Tamasic. The Lord alone can teach the truth about the subject. Whoever wants to be liberated from the miseries of this world must understand the real nature of renunciation.

Bharata-sattama, O the most excellent among the descendants of Bharata; srnu, hear, understand; me, from Me, from My statement; niscayam, the firm conclusion; tatra tyage, regarding that tyaga, regarding these alternative veiws on tyaga and sannyasa as they have been shown. Hi, for; purusavyaghra, O greatest among men; tyagah, tyaga; samprakirtitah, has been clearly declared, has been distinctly spoken of in the scriptures; to be trividhah, of three kinds, threefold, under the classes of tamasa (those based on tamas [Tamas: darkness, mental darkness, ignorance; one of the three alities of everything in Nature. Also see 14.8, and note under 2.45.-Tr.], etc. The Lord has used the word tyaga with the idea that the (primary) meanings of tyaga and sannyasa are verily the same.
Since it is difficult to comprehend this idea, that the primary meanings of the words tyaga and sannyasa can be threefold under the classification based on tamas etc. in the case of one who is unenlightened and who is alified for rites and duties-but not in the case of one who has realized the supreme Goal-,therefore no one else is capable of speaking the truth in this connection. Hence, listen to the firm conclusion of the Lord with regard to the supreme Truth as revealved by the scriptures.
Which, again, is this firm conclusion? In reply the Lord says:

Regarding contradictory versions on Tyaga among disputants, listen from Me My decision. Tyaga has been described by Me in respect of actions prescribed by the scriptures from three points of view: (1) as referring to fruits, (2) as referring to acts themselves and, (3) as referring to agency. It is contained in the statement, 'Surrendering all your actions to Me with a mind focussed on the self,' and 'Free from desire and selfishness and cured of fever - fight' (3.30). The renunciation of fruits consists in the following manner. 'Heaven and such other results arising from acts do not belong to Me.' Renunciation of acts is complete abandonment of the sense of possession in regard to one's acts. This sense of possession is of the following nature: 'Those acts are mine on account of their being the means for fruits which are to be mine.' Renunciation referring to agency is the renunciation of agency of oneself by ascribing the agency to the Lord of all.