Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 8

दुःखमित्येव यत्कर्म -- यज्ञ? दान आदि शास्त्रीय नियत कर्मोंको करनेमें केवल दुःख ही भोगना पड़ता है? और उनमें है ही क्या क्योंकि उन कर्मोंको करनेके लिये अनेक नियमोंमें बँधना पड़ता है और खर्चा भी करना पड़ता है -- इस प्रकार राजस पुरुषको उन कर्मोंमें केवल दुःखहीदुःख दीखता है। दुःख दीखनेका कारण यह है कि उनका परलोकपर? शास्त्रोंपर? शास्त्रविहित कर्मोंपर और उन कर्मोंके परिणामपर श्रद्धाविश्वास नहीं होता।,कायक्लेशभयात्त्यजेत् -- राजस मनुष्यको शास्त्रमर्यादा और लोकमर्यादाके अनुसार चलनेसे शरीरमें क्लेश अर्थात् परिश्रमका अनुभव होता है (टिप्पणी प0 876)। राजस मनुष्यको अपने वर्ण? आश्रम आदिके धर्मका पालन करनेमें और मातापिता? गुरु? मालिक आदिकी आज्ञाका पालन करनेमें पराधीनता और दुःखका अनुभव होता है तथा उनकी आज्ञा भङ्ग करके जैसी मरजी आये? वैसा करनेमें स्वाधीनता और सुखका अनुभव होता है। राजस मनुष्योंके विचार यह होते हैं कि गृहस्थमें आराम नहीं मिलता? स्त्रीपुत्र आदि हमारे अनुकूल नहीं हैं अथवा सब कुटुम्बी मर गये हैं? घरमें काम करनेके लिये कोई रहा नहीं? खुदको तकलीफ उठानी पड़ती है? इसलिये साधु बन जायँ तो आरामसे रहेंगे? रोटी? कपड़ा आदि सब चीजें मुफ्तमें मिल जायँगी? परिश्रम नहीं करना पड़ेगा कोई ऐसी सरकारी नौकरी मिल जाय? जिससे काम कम करना पड़े और रुपये आरामसे मिलते रहें? हम काम न करें तो भी उस नौकरीसे हमें कोई छुड़ा न सके? हम नौकरी छोड़ देंगे तो हमें पेंशन मिलती रहेगी? इत्यादि। ऐसे विचारोंके कारण उन्हें घरका कामधन्धा करना अच्छा नहीं लगता और वे उसका त्याग कर देते हैं।यहाँ शङ्का होती है कि ज्ञानप्राप्तिके साधनोंमें दुःख और दोषको बारबार देखनेकी बात कही है (गीता 13। 8) और यहाँ कर्मोंमें दुःख देखकर उनका त्याग करनेको राजस त्याग कहा है अर्थात् कर्मोंके त्यागका निषेध किया है -- इन दोनों बातोंमें परस्पर विरोध प्रतीत होता है। इसका समाधान है कि वास्तवमें इन दोनोंमें विरोध नहीं है? प्रत्युत इन दोनोंका विषय अलगअलग है। वहाँ (गीता 13। 8 में) भोगोंमें दुःख और दोषको देखनेकी बात है और यहाँ नियत कर्तव्यकर्मोंमें दुःखको देखनेकी बात है। इसलिये वहाँ भोगोंका त्याग करनेका विषय है और यहाँ कर्तव्यकर्मोंका त्याग करनेका विषय है। भोगोंका तो त्याग करना चाहिये? पर कर्तव्यकर्मोंका त्याग कभी नहीं करना चाहिये। कारण कि जिन भोगोंमें सुखबुद्धि और गुणबुद्धि हो रही है? उन भोगोंमें बारबार दुःख और दोषको देखनेसे भोगोंसे वैराग्य होगा? जिससे परमात्मतत्त्वकी प्राप्त होगी परन्तु नियत कर्तव्यकर्मोंमें दुःख देखकर उन कर्मोंका त्याग करनेसे सदा पराधीनता और दुःख भोगना पड़ेगा -- यज्ञार्थात् कर्मणोऽन्यत्र लोकोऽयं कर्मबन्धनः (गीता 3। 9)। तात्पर्य यह हुआ कि भोगोंमें दुःख और दोष देखनेसे भोगासक्ति छूटेगी? जिससे कल्याण होगा और कर्तव्यमें दुःख देखनेसे कर्तव्य छूटेगा? जिससे पतन होगा।कर्तव्यकर्मोंका त्याग करनेमें तो राजस और तामस -- ये दो भेद होते हैं? पर परिणाम(आलस्य? प्रमाद? अतिनिद्रा आदि) में दोनों एक हो जाते हैं अर्थात् परिणाममें दोनों ही तामस हो जाते हैं? जिसका फल अधोगति होता है -- अधो गच्छन्ति तामसाः (गीता 14। 18)।एक शङ्का यह भी हो सकती है कि सत्सङ्ग? भगवत्कथा? भक्तचरित्र सुननेसे किसीको वैराग्य हो जाय तो वह प्रभुको पानेके लिये आवश्यक कर्तव्यकर्मोंको भी छोड़ देता है और केवल भगवान्के भजनमें लग जाता है। इसलिये उसका वह कर्तव्यकर्मोंका त्याग राजस कहा जाना चाहिये ऐसी बात नहीं है। सांसारिक कर्मोंको छोड़कर जो भजनमें लग जाता है? उसका त्याग राजस या तामस नहीं हो सकता। कारण कि भगवान्को प्राप्त करना मनुष्यजन्मका ध्येय है अतः उस ध्येयकी सिद्धिके लिये कर्तव्यकर्मोंका त्याग करना वास्तवमें कर्तव्यका त्याग करना नहीं है? प्रत्युत असली कर्तव्यको करना है। उस असली कर्तव्यको करते हुए आलस्य? प्रमाद आदि दोष नहीं आ सकते क्योंकि उसकी रुचि भगवान्में रहती है। परन्तु राजस और तामस त्याग करनेवालोंमें आलस्य? प्रमाद आदि दोष आयेंगे ही क्योंकि उसकी रुचि भोगोंमें रहती है।स कृत्वा राजसं त्यागं नैव त्यागफलं लभेत् -- त्यागका फल शान्ति है। राजस मनुष्य त्याग करके भी त्यागके फल(शान्ति) को नहीं पाता। कारण कि उसने जो त्याग किया है? वह अपने सुखआरामके लिये ही किया है। ऐसा त्याग तो पशुपक्षी आदि भी करते हैं। अपने सुखआरामके लिये शुभकर्मोंका त्याग करनेसे राजस मनुष्यको शान्ति तो नहीं मिलती? पर शुभकर्मोंके त्यागका फल दण्डरूपसे जरूर भोगना पड़ता है।

तथा --, समस्त कर्म दुःखरूप हैं? ऐसा मानकर जो कोई शारीरिक क्लेशके भयसे कर्मोंको छोड़ बैठता है? वह,( ऐसा ) राजस त्याग करके? त्यागका फल अर्थात् ज्ञानपूर्वक किये हुए सर्वकर्मसंन्यासका मोक्षरूप फल? नहीं पाता।

For this reason also, abandonment of Nitya action is not possible for the ignorant, He says — 'Kiñca' (Moreover) etc.

Objection: Even without delusion, one abandons painful action out of fear of bodily trouble. For the organs produce the effect and get tired; and thus his abandonment is not properly Tamasic? To that He says — 'Duḥkhamityeva' (It is pain indeed) etc.

Whatever action considering 'it is painful, impossible to accomplish', he turns away from it, abandons it out of fear of trouble to body and senses; having abandoned that — having done abandonment caused by Rajas — he does not attain its fruit, liberation;

but by the Rajasic abandonment performed, he attains hell corresponding to that, He says — by 'Duḥkhamityeva' etc.

Thus having stated the mode of Tamasic abandonment, He states the Rajasic — 'Duḥkham' etc.

Even in the absence of delusion, thinking 'it is pain indeed', whatever action one abandons out of fear of bodily trouble — out of fear of bodily pain. Or 'yat' is an indeclinable. The meaning is 'who abandons'.

Having done Rajasic abandonment — accomplished by Rajas — he does not at all obtain the fruit of renunciation of all actions preceded by knowledge, called liberation.

By the word 'eva', He indicates that one with such abandonment should not even hope for liberation.

Thus having stated Tamasic abandonment, He states Rajasic abandonment — 'Duḥkham'.

He who, thinking 'this action is of the nature of pain indeed', abandons it out of fear of bodily trouble, that person, for that very reason, having performed Rajasic abandonment — accomplished by Rajo-guna — does not at all obtain — would obtain — the fruit of abandonment — liberation through purification of mind.

Although action is traditionally the means to liberation, still, since it is accomplished by earning wealth which involves pain, and since it causes bodily affliction due to being of the nature of great exertion, it causes depression of the mind;

due to fear of this (depression), thinking 'one should strive only for the practice of knowledge for the accomplishment of Yoga', he who abandons the Ashrama duties like Mahayajna etc.; he, having performed Rajasic abandonment -- rooted in Rajas -- does not obtain the fruit of abandonment which is the rise of knowledge; because that (abandonment) is of the nature of 'not being established in the true meaning of Shastra'.

For it will be stated 'The intellect understands incorrectly, that O Partha is Rajasic' [18.31].

For action is not the cause of serenity of mind through a visible channel; but rather through the channel of the Lord's grace.

He states Rajasic abandonment — 'Duḥkham'. Without the realization of the non-doer Self, knowing only 'it is pain indeed', if one abandons Nitya action out of fear of bodily exertion — such abandonment is Rajasic; because pain is Rajasic.

Therefore, having done that Rajasic abandonment, the Rajasic person does not at all obtain the fruit of abandonment — characterized by establishment in knowledge, this is the meaning.

So thus, even in the absence of contrariety to the essential defining property and life-giving property denoted by the word 'Svarupa' (nature) due to being internal, remembering the Rajasic intellect which will be described later due to contrariety to the described specific distinguishing property, he explains Rajasic abandonment — by 'Yadyapi' etc.

From the emphasis 'It is pain indeed' and the statement 'out of fear of bodily trouble', it results that there is no delusion of unrighteousness here. According to 'There is pain in earning wealth' [Mahabharata 3.2.44] etc., he says — 'Duḥkhātmaka' etc. 'Causing depression of mind' — because non-depression is counted in the sevenfold means like discrimination etc., this is the idea.

With the intention that in a conflict between internal and external, abandonment of the external is proper, he says — 'Jñānābhyāsa eva' (Practice of knowledge alone) etc. 'Abandoning even the stated actions, O best of twice-born. Be diligent in Self-knowledge, in tranquility, and in study of Vedas' — this restatement sentence is its source.

'Having done Rajasic abandonment' — he states what is intended in this restatement — 'Ayathāvasthita' (Situated incorrectly) etc. The fruit of Sattvic abandonment to be mentioned later is intended here by the word 'fruit of abandonment'; because it is the section of the seeker of liberation, and in the abandonment of action there is no occasion for fruit like heaven etc. achievable by that [action], with this intention he says — 'Jñānotpattirūpam' (Of the nature of rise of knowledge) etc.

He removes the doubt of depression of mind caused by painfulness etc. — 'Na hi' etc. By the order stated as 'Indeed by desirelessness of fruit' etc., the Lord, propitiated by actions, creates only non-depression of the mind, this is the meaning.

यदि कोई व्यक्ति अपने कर्तव्य कर्म को दुखदायक समझकर कायाक्लेश के भय से त्याग दे? तो उसका त्याग राजस कहा जायेगा। इसका अभिप्राय यह है कि यदि कर्तव्य कर्म दुखदायक और थकाने वाले न हों? तो रजोगुणी पुरुष उन्हें करने में तत्पर रहेगा? परन्तु कर्मशील पुरुष होकर जो अपनी व्यक्तिगत सुखसुविधाओं का त्याग नहीं कर सकता? उसे श्रेष्ठ और साहसी पुरुष कदापि नहीं कहा जा सकता। ऐसे कर्मों का कोई विशेष पुरस्कार नहीं मिलता। भगवान् तो कहते हैं? वह अपने त्याग का कोई फल प्राप्त नहीं करता है।वस्तुत अपने कर्तव्यों का पालन ही महानतम त्याग है? और विशेषत तब वह और भी अधिक श्रेष्ठ बन जाता है? जब मनुष्य को अपनी शारीरिक सुख सुविधाओं का भी त्याग करना पड़ता है। स्वयं अर्जुन भी युद्ध करने में संकोच करके अपने कर्तव्य से विमुख हो रहा था। इस प्रकार? उसका त्याग राजस श्रेणी का ही कहा जा सकता था।वास्तविक त्याग हमें सदैव आत्माभिव्यक्ति के विशालतर क्षेत्र में पहुँचाता है? जहाँ हम श्रेष्ठतर दिव्य आनन्द का अनुभव कर सकते हैं। त्याग के द्वारा ही एक कली खिलकर फूल बन जाती है? और वह फूल अपनी कोमल पंखुड़ियों और मनमोहक सुगन्ध का त्याग कर ही फल के सम्पन्न पद को प्राप्त होता हैं।

So right here, to decide the specific [truth], 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.

'Duḥkham'. Even in the absence of aforementioned delusion, due to purification of mind not having arisen, even one qualified for action, thinking 'this is pain indeed', abandons Nitya action out of fear of bodily trouble — such [abandonment] is Rajasic abandonment.

Pain is indeed Rajas, therefore that Rajasic person, even without delusion, having done such Rajasic abandonment, does not at all obtain the fruit of abandonment — the fruit of Sattvic abandonment characterized by establishment in knowledge.

He states the Rajasic [Tyaga] — 'Duḥkham' etc.

Not knowing that Tyaga is for the sake of the Lord due to attachment to the Lord, but knowing 'it is pain indeed' — [knowing action to be] an obstacle to worldly Rajasic pleasure, out of fear of bodily trouble — out of fear of it being achievable by exertion — he who abandons whatever action?

He, having performed Rajasic Tyaga, does not obtain the fruit of Tyaga — which is of the nature of My grace etc.; does not attain it, this is the meaning.

'Pain' thus 'indeed' — whatever action one abandons out of fear of bodily trouble — out of fear of bodily pain? He, having done 'Rajasic' abandonment — accomplished by Rajo-guna — does not indeed obtain the fruit of abandonment — the fruit named liberation of the renunciation of all actions preceded by knowledge, does not obtain it at all.

What then is Sattvic abandonment? He says —

By context only, He states the Rajasic [abandonment] also — 'Duḥkham'. Of the prescribed [action] itself, which though traditionally being a means to liberation, being of the nature of sacrifice accomplishable by earning wealth which is painful, and being of the form of great exertion — its abandonment is Rajasic,

due to being caused by Rajas; having done Rajasic abandonment, he does not obtain its fruit characterized by establishment in knowledge, because knowledge is born of Sattva, this is the meaning.

दुःखम् (it is) painful? इति thus? एव even? यत् which? कर्म action? कायक्लेशभयात् from fear of bodily trouble? त्यजेत् abandons? सः he? कृत्वा performing? राजसम् Rajasic? त्यागम् abandonment? न not? एव even? त्यागफलम् the fruit of abandonment? लभेत् obtains.Commentary Phalam Fruit or reward Moksha or emancipation which is the reward of renunciation of all actions accompanied with wisdom.Determination and persistence are reired for the performance of religious duties and actions. One may begin action but may relinish it before it is completed on account of some difficulties or physical suffering. What then is Sattvic renunciation The Lord says --

Yat, whatever; karma, action; tyajet, one may relinish, eva, merely; iti, as being; kuhkham, painful; [As being impossible to accomplish.] kaya-klesa-bhayat, from fear of physical suffering, out of fear of bodily pain; sah, he; krtva, having resorted; tyagam, to renunciation; rajasam, based on rajas, arising from rajas; will eva, surely; na labhet (shuld rather be labhate), not acire; tyaga-phalam, fruits of renunciation, the result called Liberation, which follows from renunciation of all actions as a conseence of Illumination.
Which, again, is the renunciation based on sattva?

Although actions constitute the indirect menas for release, yet they produce mental depression, since they can be done only by collecting materials involving painful effort and since they cause bodily strain on account of their reiring strenuous exertion. If, on account of such fear, one decides that the practice of knowledge alone should be tried for perfection in Yoga, and abandons actions like the great sacrifices applicable to one's station in life, he practises renunciation rooted in Rajas. Since that is not the meaning of the Sastras, one cannot win the fruit of renunciation in the form of the rise of knowledge. So it will be shown further one: 'That reason by which one erroneously knows, O Arjuna, is Rajasika' (18.31). In fact, actions do not directly cause purity of the mind but indirectly by winning the grace of God.