Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 9

कार्यमित्येव यत्कर्म नियतं क्रियतेऽर्जुन -- यहाँ कार्यम् पदके साथ इति और एव ये दो अव्यय लगानेसे यह अर्थ निकलता है कि केवल कर्तव्यमात्र करना है। इसको करनेमें कोई फलासक्ति नहीं? कोई स्वार्थ नहीं और कोई क्रियाजन्य सुखभोग भी नहीं। इस प्रकार कर्तव्यमात्र करनेसे कर्ताका उस कर्मसे सम्बन्धविच्छेद हो जाता है। ऐसा होनेसे वह कर्म बन्धनकारक नहीं होता अर्थात् संसारके साथ सम्बन्ध नहीं जुड़ता। कर्म तथा उसके फलमें आसक्त होनेसे ही बन्धन होता है -- फले सक्तो निबध्यते (गीता 5। 12)।शास्त्रविहित कर्मोंमें भी देश? काल? वर्ण? आश्रम? परिस्थितिके अनुसार जिसजिस कर्ममें जिसजिसकी नियुक्ति की जाती है? वे सब नियत कर्म कहलाते हैं जैसे -- साधुको ऐसा करना चाहिये? गृहस्थको ऐसा करना चाहिये? ब्राह्मणको अमुक काम करना चाहिये? क्षत्रियको अमुक काम करना चाहिये इत्यादि। उन कर्मोंको प्रमाद? आलस्य? उपेक्षा? उदासीनता आदि दोषोंसे रहित होकर तत्परता और उत्साहपूर्वक करना चाहिये। इसीलिये भगवान् कर्मयोगके प्रसङ्गमें जगहजगह समाचर शब्द दिया है (गीता 3। 9? 19)।सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा फलं चैव -- सङ्गके त्यागका तात्पर्य है कि कर्म? कर्म करनेके औजार (साधन) आदिमें आसक्ति? प्रियता? ममता आदि न हो और फलके त्यागका तात्पर्य है कि कर्मके परिणामके साथ सम्बन्ध न हो अर्थात् फलकी इच्छा न हो। इन दोनोंका तात्पर्य है कि कर्म और फलमें आसक्ति तथा इच्छाका त्याग हो।स त्यागः सात्त्विको मतः (टिप्पणी प0 877) -- कर्म और फलमें आसक्ति तथा कामनाका त्याग करके कर्तव्यमात्र समझकर कर्म करनेसे वह त्याग सात्त्विक हो जाता है। राजस त्यागमें कायक्लेशके भयसे और,तामस त्यागमें मोहपूर्वक कर्मोंका स्वरुपसे त्याग किया जाता है परन्तु सात्त्विक त्यागमें कर्मोंका स्वरूपसे त्याग नहीं किया जाता? प्रत्युत कर्मोंको सावधानी एवं तत्परतासे? विधिपूर्वक? निष्कामभावसे किया जाता है। सात्त्विक त्यागसे कर्म और कर्मफलरूप शरीरसंसारसे सम्बन्धविच्छेद हो जाता है। राजस और तामस त्यागमें कर्मोंका स्वरूपसे त्याग करनेसे केवल बाहरसे कर्मोंसे सम्बन्धविच्छेद दीखता है परन्तु वास्तवमें (भीतरसे) सम्बन्धविच्छेद नहीं होता। इसका कारण यह है कि शरीरके कष्टके भयसे कर्मोंका त्याग करनेसे कर्म तो छूट जाते हैं? पर अपने सुख और आरामके साथ सम्बन्ध जुड़ा ही रहता है। ऐसे ही मोहपूर्वक कर्मोंका त्याग करनेसे कर्म तो छूट जाते हैं? पर मोहके साथ सम्बन्ध जुड़ा रहता है। तात्पर्य यह हुआ कि कर्मोंका स्वरूपसे त्याग करनेपर बन्धन होता है और कर्मोंको तत्परतासे विधिपूर्वक करनेपर मुक्ति (सम्बन्धविच्छेद) होती है। सम्बन्ध -- छठे श्लोकमें एतानि और अपि तु पदोंसे कहे गये यज्ञ? दान? तप आदि शास्त्रविहित कर्मोंके करनेमें और शास्त्रनिषिद्ध तथा काम्य कर्मोंका त्याग करनेमें क्या भाव होना चाहिये यह आगेके श्लोकमें बताते हैं।

तो फिर सात्त्विक त्याग कौनसा है हे अर्जुन करना चाहिये -- कर्तव्य है? ऐसा समझकर? जो नित्यकर्म आसक्ति और फल छोड़कर सम्पादन किये जाते हैं। नित्यकर्मोंका फल होता है? इस विषयमें पहले भगवान्के वचनोंका प्रमाण दे चुके हैं। अथवा यों समझो कि यद्यपि नित्यकर्मोंका फल नहीं सुना जाता है? तो भी अज्ञ मनुष्य ऐसी कल्पना कर ही लेता है कि किया हुआ नित्यकर्म अन्तःकरणकी शुद्धि या प्रत्यवायकी निवृत्तिरूप फल देता है? सुतरां फलं त्यक्त्वा इस कथनसे ऐसा कल्पनाका भी निषेध करते हैं। अतः सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा फलं च यह कहना बहुत ही उचित है। वह त्याग अर्थात् नित्यकर्मोंमें आसक्ति और फलका त्याग सात्त्विक -- सत्त्वगुणसे किया हुआ त्याग माना गया,है। पू0 -- तीन प्रकारका कर्मपरित्याग संन्यास है? यह प्रकरण है। उसमें तामस और राजस तो त्याग बतलाये गये? परंतु तीसरे ( सात्त्विक ) त्यागकी जगह ( कर्मोंका त्याग न कहकर ) आसक्ति और फलका त्याग कैसे कहते हैं जैसे कोई कहे कि तीन ब्राह्मण आये हैं? उनमें दो तो वेदके छहों अङ्गोंको जाननेवाले हैं और तीसरा क्षत्रिय है? उसीके समान यह कथन भी प्रकरणविरुद्ध है। उ0 -- यह दोष नहीं है क्योंकि त्यागमात्रकी समानतासे कर्मफलत्यागकी स्तुतिके लिये ऐसा कहा है। कर्मसंन्यासकी और फलासक्तिके त्यागकी? त्यागमात्रमें तो समानता है ही। उनमें ( स्वरूपसे ) कर्मोंके त्यागको राजस और तामस त्याग बतलाकर उसकी निन्दा करके? स त्यागः सात्त्विको मतः इस कथनसे कर्मफल और आसक्तिके त्यागको सात्त्विक त्याग बतलाकर उसकी स्तुति की जाती है। जो अधिकारी? आसक्ति और फलवासना छोड़कर नित्यकर्म करता है? उसका फलासक्ति आदि दोषोंसे दूषित न किया हुआ अन्तःकरण? नित्यकर्मोंके अनुष्ठानद्वारा संस्कृत होकर विशुद्ध हो जाता है।

Abandonment of action is shown to be of two kinds, Tamasic and Rajasic? Now he describes Sattvic abandonment preceded by a question — 'Kaḥ punaḥ' (What then).

In 'Kartavyamityeva' (It is indeed to be done), by the word 'eva', any other possibility of the obligatory is prohibited. Doubting that 'abandoning fruit of obligatory actions is unjustified because no fruit is heard in their injunction', he says — 'Nityānām'. He states the purport of 'abandoning fruit' in another way — 'Athavā'. For action done by injunction is not meaningless because injunction would be meaningless; therefore, even in the absence of Scriptural fruit, one performing obligatory action by injunction, not knowing the Self, imagines the fruit as self-purification in that action by the statement of 'unimpairedness of mind'; or by the Smriti of sin in non-performance, its performance brings about cessation of that [sin] for the agent self — the Lord prevents the stated imagination in obligatory action and the imagination of subsequently produced fruit by 'abandoning fruit', this is the meaning.

Thus having stated the mode of Rajasic abandonment, He states the Sattvic one — 'Kāryam'. Abandoning 'sanga' — attachment to agency — and fruit; 'kāryam' — it is indeed a duty — whatever 'niyata' — obligatory — action is performed, that abandonment is considered Sattvic.

Objection: Since no fruit is heard in the injunction of obligatory actions, how is it said 'abandoning their fruit'? Answer: Accept that the Lord's word is the proof for the fruitfulness of obligatory actions. Otherwise the Lord's word would be meaningless. Or, if action done by injunction is meaningless, there would be the contingency of meaningless of the injunction. Even in the absence of Scriptural fruit, the ignorant qualified for action imagines that performed obligatory action produces the fruit of self-purification and avoidance of sin for the doer; the Lord prevents even that imagination by 'abandoning fruit'.

Addressing as 'Arjuna' is to indicate that this very abandonment is the cause of mind purification.

Objection: Having introduced the threefold nature of abandonment as 'Abandonment of action is considered threefold', stating the abandonment of attachment and fruit as the third is improper. Like 'Three Brahmins came, there two knowers of Shadanga Veda, the third a Kshatriya' — like that? Answer: This is not a fault. Because the display of abandonment of attachment and fruit as the third, through the commonality of 'abandonment' between renunciation of action and renunciation of attachment and fruit, by censuring abandonment of action as Rajasic and Tamasic, is for the purpose of praising it as Sattvic; thus the threefold abandonment promised by the teachers is displayed by the three verses.

Some, however, describe — 'Abandonment in the form of absence of specific things is proclaimed threefold due to absence of qualification, absence of qualificand, and absence of both. To explain: Abandonment of action preceded by desire for fruit — 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. There the first is intended to be enjoined right here as Sattvic and acceptable. The second He will state in 'Naishkarmyasiddhim paramam'.

In this view, by including two in one and throwing the third in another place — the non-fulfillment of the promise should be seen as bringing about great lack of skill for the Lord.

Thus by the two verses, only the primary Tamasic and Rajasic abandonments were stated. The impossibility of secondary Tamasic and Rajasic abandonments is indicated by the Lord Himself by 'Abandonment of that out of delusion' and 'abandons out of fear of bodily trouble'. For it is not possible thus. Because of the contradiction 'he is deluded and he acts'. If he acts, he is not deluded; if he is deluded, he does not act at all. Similarly, if he fears bodily trouble, he does not act; if he acts, he does not fear bodily trouble; therefore 'he acts and fears bodily trouble' is contradictory. Therefore, due to impossibility of secondary Tamasic and Rajasic abandonments, they were not stated.

But Sattvic secondary abandonment is possible. Just as redness in a crystal resting on a hibiscus flower exists for the discriminators only by perception, not in reality; so too agency in the Self dependent on God exists for discriminators only by perception, not in reality — it is possible to say this. And thus, a person void of attachment to agency acts indeed by perception, not in reality — thus secondary Sattvic abandonment is also possible; therefore stating that alone as the cause of qualification for primary abandonment, He first says — 'Kāryam'.

'Kāryam' — it is indeed a duty — whatever action 'niyata' — obligatory — is performed, O Arjuna? Abandoning 'sanga' and 'fruit' indeed — this emphasis is for excluding the previously mentioned view of non-abandonment. That such abandonment is considered Sattvic — is seen in the Veda. And so the Shruti: 'All this is pervaded by the Lord, whatever moves in the world. By that renunciation enjoy; do not covet anyone's wealth'.

'Īśā' — by the Lord, the Supreme Ruler, the doer of all effects and instruments, the impeller of the Self; 'idam jagat' — the moving and unmoving world situated in 'jagatyām' — the universe — is 'vāsyam' — covered, pervaded. Since everything is dependent on Him, for that reason 'tena tyaktena' — by that renunciation, by abandoning the pride of agency and enjoyment — 'bhuñjīthāḥ' — enjoy the objects. 'Mā gṛdhaḥ' — do not covet. 'Kasyasviddhanam' — no one has ownership there, so covetousness there is in vain, this is the meaning. Thus, even doing actions — sacrifice etc. — abandoning pride of agency, there will be no taint of action for you.

Apart from this, there is no other way for you — this is displayed by the next Mantra — 'Doing actions indeed here one should wish to live a hundred years. Thus for you, not otherwise than this, action does not cling to the man'. This very primary opinion of His own was displayed by the Lord in the verse 'Etānyapi tu karmāṇi'.

Objection: Nitya actions have no fruit at all, what is to be abandoned? Answer: From this very word of the Lord, know that they too have fruit. Because it is impossible for the Veda to cause performance of the fruitless. And so Apastamba — 'Just as for a mango tree planted for fruit, shade and fragrance follow, so for Dharma being practiced, objects follow' — thus he shows the incidental fruit of Nitya actions. By the Smriti of sin in non-performance also, it is displayed that their fruit is avoidance of sin. By 'One removes sin by Dharma' etc. also, fruit is seen even in Nitya actions, that alone should be stated, so there is no fault.

The Nitya, Naimittika, Mahayajna etc. actions prescribed for Varna and Ashrama, are to be done as a form of My worship, considering them as 'ends in themselves' (svayam-prayojana); having abandoned 'Sangam' -- attachment/mineness in action -- and the fruit, that which is performed; that Tyaga is considered 'Sattvika', that is rooted in Sattva.

Meaning, rooted in the knowledge of the true meaning of Shastra. For it has been stated that Sattva alone produces the knowledge of things as they really are -- 'From Sattva arises knowledge' (Gita 14.17).

And it will be stated -- 'Activity and inactivity, duty and non-duty, fear and fearlessness, bondage and liberation -- that which knows these, that intellect, O Partha, is Sattvic' (Gita 18.30).

He states Sattvic abandonment — 'Kāryam'.

Understanding 'it is a duty', whatever prescribed — enjoined as necessarily to be done — action is performed abandoning attachment and fruit, such abandonment is considered Sattvic.

Now, extracting what was reminded by 'Tyāgo hi' [18.4] etc., He strengthens its scriptural validity as being rooted in correct knowledge which is the effect of Sattva — by the verse 'Kāryamityeva'.

From the beginning 'But abandonment of prescribed action is not proper' [18.7], here also the word 'niyata' is an adjective to action, he states that meaning — 'Nitya'.

Actually 'kāryatva' (duty-ness) belongs to the purpose itself. Only for that sake is the duty-ness of the means; therefore how is there duty-ness of the fruitless? To this he says — 'Kāryam' as the form of My worship. He states that intention — 'Svayamprayojanam' (End in itself).

Abandonment of agency is also to be considered here. Therefore indeed in the subsequent verse the word 'Tyagi' is explained as 'abandoner of attachment, fruit, and agency'.

सात्त्विक पुरुष इस भावना से कर्म करते हैं कि नियत कर्मों का पालन करना कर्तव्य है और उनका त्याग करना अत्यन्त अपमान जनक एवं लज्जास्पद कार्य है। कर्तव्य के त्याग को वे अपनी मृत्यु ही मानते हैं। ऐसे अनुप्राणित पुरुषों का त्याग सात्त्विक कहलाता है।कर्मों में कुछ अपरिहार्य प्रतिबन्ध होते हैं। भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण का उपदेश केवल इतना ही है कि हमको इन प्रतिबन्धों के बिना अपने कर्म करते रहना चाहिए। अभिप्राय यह है कि कर्म फल से आसक्ति होने पर ही वह कर्म हमें बन्धन में बद्ध कर सकता है? अन्यथा नहीं। अत? वास्तविक त्याग फलासक्ति का होना चाहिए? कर्मों का नहीं। इसीलिए? आसक्ति रहित कर्तव्यों के पालन को यहाँ सात्विक त्याग कहा गया है। भगवान् के उपदेशानुसार? अपने मन में स्थित स्वार्थ? कामना? आसक्ति आदि का त्याग ही यथार्थ त्याग है जिसके द्वारा हमें अपने परमानन्द स्वरूप की प्राप्ति होती है। यह त्याग कुछ ऐसा ही है? जैसे हम अन्न को ग्रहण कर क्षुधा का त्याग करते हैं अहंकार और स्वार्थ का त्याग करके कर्तव्यों के पालन से मनुष्य अपनी वासनाओं का क्षय करता है और आन्तरिक शुद्धि को प्राप्त करता है। इस प्रकार? त्याग तो मनुष्य को और अधिक शक्तिशाली और कार्यकुशल बना देता है।किस प्रकार यह सात्त्विक पुरुष आत्मानुभव को प्राप्त करता है सुनो

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'.

Abandonment of action was shown as Tamasic and Rajasic and rejectable? What kind then is the acceptable Sattvic abandonment called — Even if fruit is not heard in the injunction, understanding 'kāryam' — it is indeed a duty — whatever 'niyata' — obligatory — action is performed abandoning attachment — adherence to agency — and fruit, up to the purification of mind, that abandonment is 'Sattvic' — accomplished by Sattva — considered — agreed by the wise as acceptable.

Objection: Nitya actions have no fruit at all, how is it said 'abandoning fruit'? Answer: It is stated. From this very word of the Lord it is understood that Nityas have fruit, because performance of the fruitless is impossible.

And so Apastamba — 'Just as for a mango tree planted for fruit, shade and fragrance follow, so for Dharma being practiced, objects follow' — thus he shows the incidental fruit of Nityas. And Smriti of sin in non-performance. And 'Removes sin by Dharma, therefore they call Dharma supreme', 'By whatever one may conquer... or by Darvihoma he becomes indeed unimpaired in mind', 'They say the self-sacrificer is better than the god-sacrificer, one should say indeed he is a self-sacrificer... he indeed is a self-sacrificer who knows

He states the Sattvic [abandonment] — 'Kāryam' etc.

Prescribed — as an auxiliary to devotion, 'it is a duty' indeed, as My command, it is necessarily to be done indeed? Knowing thus, abandoning attachment — pride of its agency, and 'fruit' — the happiness like heaven born from it also — whatever action is performed, that abandonment alone is Sattvic?

Because of the absence of selfish fruit due to its performance as My command, it is Sattvic. Therefore 'mataḥ' — approved by Me, this is the meaning.

'Kāryam' — it is a duty — thus indeed whatever action 'niyata' — obligatory — is done, performed, O Arjuna? Abandoning 'attachment' and 'fruit' also 'indeed'. We have said that the Lord's word is the proof for the fruitfulness of obligatory actions. Or, although fruit is not heard for obligatory action, still the ignorant one indeed imagines that performed obligatory action produces the fruit of self-purification or avoidance of sin for the self. There, He prevents even that imagination by 'abandoning fruit'. Therefore it is well said 'abandoning attachment and fruit'.

That abandonment — the abandonment of attachment and fruit in obligatory actions — is 'Sāttvikaḥ' — accomplished by Sattva — 'mataḥ' — intended.

Objection: 'Abandonment of action is threefold Sannyasa' — thus is the subject. There Tamasic and Rajasic abandonment was stated. How is abandonment of attachment and fruit stated here as the third? Like 'Three Brahmins came; there two knowers of Shadanga, the third a Kshatriya' — like that. Answer: This is not a fault, because it is for the purpose of praise through the generality of 'abandonment'. There is indeed commonality of 'abandonment-ness' between renunciation of action and renunciation of desire for fruit. There, by censuring abandonment of action as Rajasic and Tamasic, the abandonment of desire for fruit of action is praised as Sattvic — by 'That abandonment is considered Sattvic' [18.9].

But he who is qualified and performs obligatory action abandoning attachment and desire for fruit, his mind, not being polluted by desire for fruit etc., being purified by obligatory actions, becomes pure. That [mind] becomes pure, clear, capable of contemplating the Self. For him alone, of pure mind through performance of obligatory action, facing Self-knowledge, how gradually 'establishment in That' (Self-knowledge) would occur — that is to be stated — thus He says.

He states the abandonment favored by the wise as Sattvic — 'Kāryam'. Obligatory, occasional, great sacrifices etc. actions enjoined for Varna and Ashrama, being worship of Him by the Lord's command, are 'duty' — thinking thus whatever is done, O Arjuna — of pure nature? That too in the stated manner — thus He says — abandoning 'sanga' — mineness in action — and 'fruit'.

That is Sattvic, being caused by Sattva.

Even so, taking refuge (acceptance) in Pushti-Purushottama alone, renouncing everything, is the attributeless (Nirguna) abandonment which is of the nature of obeying His command — this is the opinion of the Acharya (Vallabhacharya).

कार्यम् ought to be done? इति thus? एव even? यत् which? कर्म action? नियतम् obligatory? क्रियते is performed? अर्जुन O Arjuna? सङ्गम् attachment? त्यक्त्वा abandoning? फलम् fruit? च and? एव even? सः that? त्यागः abandonment? सात्त्विकः Sattvic (pure)? मतः is regarded.Commentary A man of pure nature performs actions that have fallen to his lot in accordance with his capacity and his inherent nature. He is not filled with the pride that he is the performer of such actions nor does he hope for any gain therefrom.An ignorant man may think that the obligatory duties may produce their fruits for the performer by causing selfpurification and preventing the sin of omission or nonperformance. This sort of thinking and expectation of rewards also must be abandoned. Abandonment of the rewards of actions is praised in this verse.When a man does obligatory duties without agency and with unselfishness and egolessness his,mind is purified? his Antahkarana is prepared for the reception of the divine light or the dawn of Selfknowledge. He gradually becomes fit for devotion to knowledge (JnanaNishtha).The aspirant or seeker after liberation should be prepared to undergo physical sufferings. All acts of selfdiscipline and selfsacrifice entail physical suffering.This? again? is the central teaching of the Gita -- do your duty without attachment and selfish desires.

Yat, whatever; niyatam karma, daily obligatory duty; kriyate, is performed, accomplished; iti eva, just because; it is karyam, a bounden duty; O Arjuna, tyaktva, by giving up; sangam, attachment; and phalam, the result; ca eva, as well; sah, that; tyagah, renunciation, giving up of attachment and (hankering for) the resutls of daily obligatory duties; matah, is considered; to be sattvikah, based on sattva, arising from sattva.
We said that the Lord's utterance is proof of the fruitfulness of daily obligatory duties. Or, even if the niyakarmas be understood (from the Lord's worlds) to be fruitless, still the ignorant man does certainly imagine that the nityakarmas (daily obligatory duites) when performed produce for oneself a result either in the form of purification of the mind or avoidance of evil. As to this, the Lord aborts even that imagination by saying, 'by giving up the result'. Hence it has been well said, 'by giving up attachment and the result'.
Objection: Well, is not the threefold relinishment of actions, also called sannyasa, under discussion? As regards this, the renunciation based on tamas and rajas have been stated. Why is the relinishment of attachment and (desire for their) results spoken of here as the third? This is like somody saying, 'Three Brahmanas have come. Of them two are versed in the six auxiliaries [The six auxiliaries are: Siksa (Phonetics), Kalpa (Code of Rituals and Sacrifices), Vyakarana (Grammar), Nirukta (Etymology), Chandas (Meter, Prosody), and Jyotisa (Astronomy).-Tr.] of the Vedas; the third is a Ksatirya!'
Reply: This is not wrong, for this is meant as a eulogy on the basis of the common factor of renunciation. Between renunciation of actions and renunciation. of hankering for results, there is, indeed, the similarity of the fact of renunciation. While on this subject, by condemning 'renunciation of actions' on account of its being based on rajas and tamas, the 'renunciation of desire for results of actions' is being praised on account of its being based on sattva, by saying, 'that renunciation is considered to be based on sattva.'
The internal organ of a person who is alified for rites and duties, who performs the nityakarmas by giving up attachment and hankering for results, becomes pure on account of its being untainted by attachment to results etc. and refined by the nitya-karmas. When it is pure and tranil, it becomes capable of contemplating on the Self. Since, for that very person whose internal organ has become purified by performing the nityakarmas and who has become ready for the knowledge of the Self, the process by which he can become steadfast in it has to be stated, therefore the Lord says:

When rites like obligatory and occasional ceremonies and the great sacrifices enjoined on one's station and stage in life, are practised for their own sake, as worship of Myself and as a duty, relinishing possessiveness and fruits - such abandonment is regarded as Sattvika. It is noted in Sattva. The idea is that it is rooted in the knowledge of the meaning of the Sastras as it really is. That Sattva generates the knowledge of things as they really are, has been taught in: 'From Sattva arises knowledge' (14.17), and it will be further declared: 'That reason by which one knows action and renunciation, what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, fear and fearlessness, bondage and release, O Arjuna, is Sattvika' (18.30).