Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 41

व्याख्या-- 'व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धिरेकेह कुरुनन्दन'-- कर्मयोगी साधकका ध्येय (लक्ष्य) जिस समताको प्राप्त करना रहता है, वह समता परमात्माका स्वरूप है। उस परमात्मस्वरूप समताकी प्राप्तिके लिये अन्तःकरणकी समता साधन है, अन्तःकरणकी समतामें संसारका राग बाधक है। उस रागको हटानेका अथवा परमात्मतत्त्वको प्राप्त करनेका जो एक निश्चय है, उसका नाम है--व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धि। व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धि एक क्यों होती है? कारण कि इसमें सांसारिक वस्तु, पदार्थ आदिकी कामनाका त्याग होता है। यह त्याग एक हीहोता है, चाहे धनकी कामनाका त्याग करें चाहे मान-बड़ाईकी कामनाका त्याग करें। परन्तु ग्रहण करनेमें अनेक चीजें होती है क्योंकि एकएक चीज अनेक तरहकी होती है; जैसे--एक ही मिठाई अनेक तरहकी होती है। अतः इन चीजोँकी कामनाएं भी अनेक, अनन्त होती हैं।

जो यह बुद्धि सांख्यके विषयमें कही गयी है और जो योगके विषयमें अब कही जानेवाली है वह हे कुरुनन्दन इस कल्याणमार्गमें व्यवसायात्मिका निश्चय स्वभाववाली बुद्धि एक ही है यानि यथार्थ प्रमाणजनित होनेके कारण अन्य विपरीत बुद्धियोंके शाखाभेदोंकी बाधक है। जो इतर ( दूसरी ) बुद्धियाँ हैं जिनके शाखाभेदके विस्तारसे संसार अनन्त अपार और अनुपरत होता है अर्थात् निरन्तर अत्यन्त विस्तृत होता है उन अनन्त भेदोंवाली बुद्धियोंका प्रमाणजनित विवेकबुद्धिके बलसे अन्त हो जानेपर संसारका भी अन्त हो जाता है। परंतु जो अव्यवसायी हैं जो प्रमाणजनित विवेकबुद्धिसे रहित हैं उनकी वे बुद्धियाँ बहुत शाखा अर्थात् बहुत भेदोंवाली और प्रतिशाखाभेदसे अनन्त होती हैं।

Objection: There exist other intellects (views) as well, famous in the scriptures of Kanada etc., apart from the two intellects (Sankhya and Yoga). And so, how is it that only two intellects were taught by the Lord? To that, He says 'yeyam' (this which), etc. That alone is the one authoritative intellect—He says 'vyavasāyātmikā' (resolute), etc. Other intellects are rooted in non-discrimination and are unauthoritative—He says 'bahuśākhā hi' (for many-branched indeed), etc. He states the intended fruit of the resolute intellect engaged in the path of the good—'itara' (others), etc. Relative to the two contextual intellects, the 'others'—the contrary and proof-less intellects imagined by one's own fancy—are the divisions of branches which are the cause of Samsara; (this intellect) is the sublater of that—this is the idea. The reason therein is—'samyag' (rightly), etc. Because they arise from faultless Vedic sentences, the stated pair of intellects, constituting the means and the goal, are sublators of the cause of Samsara directly or indirectly—this is the meaning. He explains the second half—'yāḥ punaḥ' (those which however), etc. 'Itaratva' (being other) means being a different object relative to the two contextual intellects. He shows their causality of evil—'yāsām' (of whose), etc. The 'divisions of branches' are the specific modifications of the mind arising excessively in a continuous series of connected and sub-connected unauthorized intellects; their 'pracāra' is activity; 'due to the power of that'—this explains 'anantatvam' (endlessness), i.e., being devoid of cessation without right knowledge. 'Aparatvam' (being lower/other?) means being merely an effect but devoid of a real cause. He illuminates the 'non-cessation'—'nitya' (eternal/always), etc. Then how is the culmination of human goal (attained) by their cessation? To that he says—'pramāṇa' (proof), etc. Making the discriminative intellect—which is accomplished through purification of the meaning of words by the inference named Anvaya-Vyatireka (concomitance and exclusion) and by Agama—the cause; in accordance with the right knowledge generated, the contextual contrary intellects turn away; when those uncounted (intellects) have turned away, Samsara too, unable to stand due to being supportless, becomes ceased—this is the meaning. 'Yāḥ punaḥ'—thus introduced, he enumerates the contrary intellects which are to be removed by Knowledge of Truth and are the abode of Samsara—'tā buddhayaḥ' (those intellects), etc. How is there 'many-branched-ness' of intellects like a tree? To that he says—'bahubhedā ityetat' (many divisions, thus this), etc. Towards each single intellect there is a 'branch-division', i.e., internal specific distinction; by that the numberlessness of intellects is celebrated—he says 'pratiśākha' (branch by branch), etc. The word 'hi' is to illuminate the fame of the infinitude of intellects. Suspecting that the possession of the stated divisions of intellect is not well-known for those possessing right knowledge, he replies—'keṣām' (of whom), etc.

'Iha'—in the path of liberation—the 'vyavasāyātmikā'—resolute—intellect regarding the means and the goal is 'ekā' (one); because it is generated by right proof and is the sublater of the divisions of branches of contrary intellects. Those who describe 'vyavasāyātmikā' as the resolute understanding 'I will cross over by devotion to the Supreme Lord alone'—since the Bhashyakara (Shankara), defining the nature of that intellect, said 'because it is born of proof', and thus implied 'it is firm'—there is no contradiction (with their view). 'Avyavasāyinām'—of the desirers (kamis) devoid of discriminative intellect generated by proof—the intellects are 'bahuśākhāḥ'—possessing many branches which bestow unceasing Samsara; and due to the difference of 'pratiśākhā' (sub-branches) they are indeed 'anantāḥ' (infinite), because of the infinitude of desires. And regarding what was said (by some)—'Objection: If thus the causality of saving from great fear is equal for Sankhya and Yoga, then what is the distinction between these two? Anticipating this—there is no fear of fall for the Sankhyas, but for the Yogis there is fear of fall until disembodied liberation—He says vyavasāyātmikā etc.'—that is questionable (cintyam). Because it is inappropriate to raise the text, which is intent on praising Yoga, as intent on censuring it; and because the perception of censure of the desire-monger (sakāma) is clear from 'kāmātmānaḥ' etc. 'For you, however, born in a noble lineage, the resolute intellect alone is proper'—indicating this, He says 'Kurunandana' (O descendant of Kuru).

'Hear this wisdom regarding Yoga'—this was said; indeed, intellects are many due to difference of opinions; so how can I establish commitment in one? To this He says 'vyavasāyātmikā' (resolute), etc. The meaning is that there is unity indeed of opinions determined by right logic.

Objection: If thus the causality of saving from great fear is equal for Sankhya and Yoga, then what is the distinction between these two? Anticipating this—there is no fear of fall for the Sankhyas, but for the Yogis there is fear of fall until disembodied liberation—He says 'vyavasāyātmikā' etc. 'Vyavasāya' means determination of Truth; 'tadātmikā' means of that nature/form, the intellect, the modification of the inner organ. The modification of the inner organ in the form of Brahman generated by the sentence 'I am Brahman', named 'Brahma-vidya', arisen rightly by sublation of all other modifications, is 'ekā'—one only. Because of the Shruti 'For this Brahma-world is once-manifested'. 'Brahmaloka' here means Brahman itself as the world. For once Brahman is known, nothing remains to be known or done, because the Knower of Brahman is fulfilled; therefore, he has no fear of fall. But of the 'avyavasāyinām'—the ignorant—the intellects are infinite; and they are each 'many-branched'. Because the determination 'This alone is my good' is difficult to obtain, and since there is fear of fall due to the idea of good regarding even what is not good sometimes; thus there is a great distinction between the two—this is the idea.

'Iha'—in this entire scriptural action—'vyavasāyātmikā buddhiḥ'—the resolute intellect—is 'ekā'—one. The intellect regarding action to be performed by a seeker of liberation is the resolute intellect. 'Vyavasāya' means determination; for that intellect is preceded by the determination of the true nature of the Self. But the intellect regarding optional (desire-motivated) action is irresolute. For there, in the qualification of desire, only the existence of the Self distinct from the body is required, not the determination of the true nature of the Self's own form; because even in the absence of the determination of the true nature of the Self's form, the desire for fruits like heaven etc., the performance of means for that, and the experience of those fruits are possible and there is no contradiction. That very resolute intellect is 'one' because its subject is the means to a single fruit. For all actions are enjoined for the seeker of liberation for the single fruit of liberation. Therefore, due to the unity of the scriptural purport, the intellect regarding all actions is one indeed. Just as, being the means to a single fruit, regarding the six sacrifices like Agneya etc. along with their subsidiaries, due to being a single scriptural purport, the intellect regarding them is one; like that—this is the meaning. 'Avyavasāyināṃ tu'—but for the irresolute, who are qualified for actions which are means to fruits like heaven, sons, cattle, food, etc.—the 'buddhayaḥ'—intellects—are 'anantāḥ'—infinite—due to the infinity of fruits; 'tatrāpi bahuśākhāḥ'—even there, they are many-branched. Even in action like Darshapurnamasa enjoined for a single fruit, 'many-branched-ness' exists due to the difference of intermediate fruits understood from texts like 'he hopes for life', 'he hopes for good progeny', etc. Therefore, the intellects of the irresolute are infinite and many-branched. This is what is said: Abandoning all principal fruits and intermediate fruits which are heard of in obligatory and occasional actions, all actions are to be performed as a single scriptural purport with the single fruit of liberation. And optional actions suitable to one's caste and stage, abandoning their respective fruits, unifying them with obligatory and occasional ones as means to the fruit of liberation, are to be performed according to one's strength.

To the expectation 'Why?', He states the difference between the two with 'vyavasāya' etc. 'Iha'—in Karma Yoga characterized by the worship of the Lord—the 'vyavasāyātmikā'—resolute—intellect, of the nature of the determination 'I shall certainly cross over only by devotion to the Supreme Lord', is 'ekā'—one indeed, single-pointed indeed. But of the 'avyavasāyinām'—of the many-faced desirers—the intellects are 'anantāḥ'—infinite—due to the infinity of desires; 'tatrāpi'—even there—they are 'bahuśākhāḥ'—many-branched—due to differences in action, quality, fruit, etc. For the obligatory and occasional action done for the sake of the worship of the Lord does not perish even by some defect in limbs. For it is enjoined as 'one should do as one is able'. And there is no defect; because defect ceases merely by the intention for the Lord. But optional action is not so—'one desiring heaven should offer Agnihotra', 'one desiring sense-power should offer with curd'—therefore there is a great difference; this is the idea.

Thus, under the pretext of stating the greatness, the distinctness of this action from all other actions was stated. Now, distinguishing the understanding regarding that (action) promised to be taught from the understandings regarding optional actions by the difference in cause and fruit, He teaches—he says 'kāmye' etc. He explains 'iha' (here) which was summarized as—'śāstrīye sarvasmin karmaṇi' (in all scriptural action). Since worldly actions which are neither enjoined nor prohibited have different fruits, to avoid unity in that subject too, 'śāstrīya' (scriptural) is said. Or, this is a statement of the collecting limiting condition. To exclude merely the contextual war etc., 'sarvasmin' (in all) is said. It is a collection of obligatory, occasional, optional, and their internal varieties. In the doubt 'how can there be oneness of the various understandings regarding various actions?', he qualifies the understanding by the subject (viṣaya) resulted from the force of the qualifying context—'mumukṣuṇā' (by the seeker of liberation). By the word 'vyavasāya', he refutes the error of 'determination to do' (kṛtyadhyavasāya)—saying 'niścaya' (determination/certainty). To avoid repetition, showing the subject and the target of the latter part of the compound, he explains 'mumukṣuṇā' etc.—'sā hi' (for that is) etc. He states what is excluded by 'vyavasāyātmikā'—'kāmyeti' (optional/desire-based).

Objection: Without knowledge of the Self distinct from the body and existing in the other world, how can there be performance of great efforts like sacrifices which are means to heaven etc. to be experienced in another body? To this, he says—'tatra hi' (for there indeed). 'Qualified by desire' or 'where qualification is by desire' is 'kāmādhikāra'—optional action or qualification for it. Or that scripture. And 'adhikāra' (qualification/claim) is the pride 'this action is for me because it is the means to what I desire'. By the word 'Self distinct from body', steadiness fit for taking another body is intended; otherwise, even if mere distinctness is determined, if there is the error of destruction simultaneous with the body, there would be the contingency of non-performance of optional actions for the next world. He explains what is intended by the word 'mātra' (only)—'na ātma' (not Self) etc. And here, the true nature of the Self's own form is intended as: eternality, self-luminosity, blissfulness, being a mode of the Lord, natural freedom from sin, etc. Objection: Regarding heaven and liberation to be experienced after the body, in one place only knowledge of Self-existence is required, in another determination of its true nature—whence is this distinction? To this, he says—'svarūpa' etc. This is the intention: In the qualification for desire (Kamya), is determination of true nature required due to inexplicability (otherwise) or by the force of scripture? Even in the absence of determination of true nature in the former case, would there not be desire for fruit like heaven? Or performance of means? Or experience of fruit? Not the first: because desire is established naturally for things established by proof as being of the nature of happiness. Not the second: because for one desiring that, possessing body and organs favorable to that, determining his own existence even at the time of that fruit, performance is reasonable by the logic of the ignorant farmer etc. Not the third: because the production of fruit for the means performed without defect does not depend on anything else; and since it is produced for experience alone, when that experience is established—just like in the enjoyments of a universal emperor etc.—in the enjoyments of heaven etc., at the time of experience, there is independence from the experience of the true nature of the Self. All this is said ending with 'sambhavāt' (due to possibility). 'Sambhava' here means absence of inexplicability. Nor is it proper to say 'by force of scripture' here; for scripture would enjoin either a seen result or an unseen result. Here, 'merely seen result' has been answered. Elsewhere too, not the accomplishment of the body performing the sacrifice etc., because of not considering that. Nor the entry as a purification of the agent-Self; because in the sections of desire-qualification, like the injunction of sprinkling etc., there is no injunction 'one should know the Self in truth'; and because the absence of subsidiary-hood to action for the knowledge enjoined in Vedanta—due to having a different, superior fruit etc.—has been supported in the Shariraka (Brahma Sutras). And Shrutis like 'For these rafts are unsteady...' (Mundaka 1.2.7) propound fruit like heaven even for those ignorant of the Self-truth. 'Yām imām puṣpitāṃ vācam...' (Verse 42).

कर्मयोग के साधन से आत्मसाक्षात्कार की सर्वोच्च उपलब्धि केवल इसलिये सम्भव है कि साधक दृढ़ निश्चय और एकाग्र चित्त से इसका अभ्यास करता है। जो लोग फल प्राप्ति की असंख्य इच्छाओं से प्रेरित हुये कर्म करते हैं उनका व्यक्तित्व विखरा हुआ रहता है और इस कारण एकाग्र चित्त होकर वे किसी भी क्षेत्र में सतत् कार्य नहीं कर सकते जिसका एक मात्र परिणाम उन्हें मिलता है विनाशकारी असफलता।इस श्लोक में संक्षेप में सफलता का रहस्य बताया गया है। निश्चयात्मक बुद्धि से कार्य करने पर किसी भी क्षेत्र में निश्चय ही सफलता मिलती है। परन्तु सामान्यत लोग असंख्य इच्छायें करते हैं जो अनेक बार परस्पर विरोधी होती हैं और स्वाभाविक ही उन्हें पूर्ण करने में मन की शक्ति को खोकर थक जाते हैं। इसे ही संकल्प विकल्प का खेल कहते हैं जो मनुष्य की सफलता के समस्त अवसरों को लूट ले जाता है।

'Neheti' etc. 'Iha'—in this understanding—there is no destruction by 'atikrama'—by transgression, by offense, by negligence—because of the absence of negligence. And just as a blazing cauldron of oil becomes cool immediately by a limited grain of sandalwood, so by this Yoga-understanding, even if little, the great fear in the form of Samsara is destroyed.

Objection: By the verse 'vyavasāyātmikā', neither the Yoga promised is spoken of, nor is there praise like 'endowed with understanding' (2.39); so what is this for? To this he says—'yoga' etc. 'Hear this speech to be described regarding the means to knowledge; having heard, make commitment there'—this is what is said. Because mere hearing is impossible without an injunction. For many 'intellects'—speeches regarding the means to knowledge—are mutually contradictory. How? Due to difference of opinion. Relying on one view, they declare some means to knowledge; relying on another view, negating that, they speak another. And there is no determinant that 'this alone is truth, not this'. Therefore, how can I establish commitment—faith—in one, in your speech alone? Objection: All views are indeed 'resolute' (vyavasāyātmaka) because there is no doubt for everyone in their own subject. So how is it said 'resolute intellect' vs 'intellects of the irresolute'? To this he says—'samyag' etc. 'Yukti' refers to proof in general. 'Determined by proof' is the meaning of the word 'vyavasāya' here, not mere determination. The meaning is: Only the authoritative view is to be accepted; there is never dispute there; whereby you would lack commitment in one. Even if dispute exists in unauthoritative views, what will it do? This is the idea.

To explain this, He states the unity of purpose of the acts enjoined by the sentence 'tam etam' (Brihadaranyaka 4.4.22)—'O descendant of Kuru, iha'—in the path of the good, or in the sentence 'tam etam'—the 'vyavasāyātmikā'—intellect of the nature of the determination of the Self-truth—is 'ekā' (one) only, intended as the goal of the four Ashramas; because by the third case ending in 'by Vedic recitation' etc., the independent instrumentality of each is taught. For if they had different purposes, there would be combination (samuccaya). Even if the purpose were one, like 'by Darsha and Purnamasa' through a Dvandva compound, or like 'that which is for Agni and for Prajapati' through the word 'and' (ca), (there could be combination), but there is no such proof here—this is the meaning. 'The intellect regarding Sankhya and the intellect regarding Yoga is one resolute intellect because of having one fruit; it is the sublater of all contrary intellects because it arises from faultless Vedic sentences; whereas the others, the intellects of the irresolute, are sublatable'—such is the meaning according to the Bhashyakara. But others say the meaning is: 'I will cross Samsara only by the worship of the Supreme Lord'—such a resolute, single-pointed intellect alone exists 'iha'—in Karma Yoga. In any case, in accordance with the Jnana Kanda, 'even a little of this Dharma saves from great fear' is reasonable. In the Karma Kanda, however, 'bahuśākhāḥ'—of many varieties, because desires are of many varieties; and 'anantāḥ' (infinite)—due to the difference of sub-branches like fruit of action, fruit of quality, etc.—are the intellects of the 'avyavasāyinām' (irresolute). The word 'hi' is to indicate the fame of the infinitude of the intellects of those desiring those fruits. Therefore, the intention is that there is a great distinction of actions for purification relative to optional actions.

Moreover, the intellect of those performing actions for fruit is in many places; (thinking) 'there is only one intellect for those performing action as My command due to being devoted to Me'—so that there is no doubt of the reverse due to delusion, He says 'vyavasāyātmikā' etc. O descendant of Kuru—born in a noble lineage—'iha'—in the path of devotion—the 'vyavasāyātmikā' (intellect)—of the form 'I will do it only by the Lord's command'—is one indeed. Of the 'avyavasāyinām'—the extroverted, of unsure hearts—the intellects are infinite; and for the sake of fruit, they are many-branched. There, due to the absence of completeness of limbs, the possibility of sin (pratyavaya) etc. certainly exists; but for devotees, due to completeness, there is no possibility of fruitlessness, sin, etc. Therefore indeed is the Lord's statement: 'If there is a lapse of time for men performing My work, thirty million great sages perform that work of his.'

'Vyavasāyātmikā'—of the nature of determination—intellect is 'ekā eva'—one only; which is the sublater of the divisions of branches of other contrary intellects, because it is generated by right proof; 'iha'—in the path of the good, O descendant of Kuru. 'Yāḥ punaḥ'—those which, however, are 'itarāḥ'—other, contrary intellects; due to the power of the spreading of whose branch-divisions, the infinite, boundless, unceasing Samsara becomes constantly extended and expanded; and due to the power of the cause which is the discriminative intellect generated by proof, when the intellects of infinite divisions cease, Samsara also ceases—'tāḥ buddhayaḥ'—those intellects are 'bahuśākhāḥ'—those which have many branches are many-branched; meaning 'of many divisions'. For due to the difference of sub-branches, the intellects are 'anantāḥ'—infinite. Of whom? 'Avyavasāyinām'—of those devoid of discriminative intellect generated by proof, this is the meaning. (Those who do not have the resolute intellect...)

To the expectation 'Why?', He says 'vyavasāyā' etc. 'Iha'—in Yoga—the intellect is one, 'vyavasāyātmikā' (resolute). The intellect of the nature of the determination 'Some action must be done not for fruit, or for the sake of God' is one, due to having one subject. In Sankhya, however, the modification (vritti) is void of the triad (knower, known, knowledge). He states the difference from optional (Kamya) action also—of the 'avyavasāyinām'—those intent on optional actions—the intellects are 'bahuśākhāḥ' (many-branched) and 'anantāḥ' (infinite); this is indeed well-known. And He will say in the context of Demoniac Destiny: 'I will sacrifice, I will give, I will rejoice' (16.15) etc.

व्यवसायात्मिका onepointed? बुद्धिः determination? एका single? इह here? कुरुनन्दन O joy of the Kurus? बहुशाखाः manybranched? हि indeed? अनन्ताः endless? च and? बुद्धयः thoughts? अव्यवसायिनाम् of the irresoulte.Commentary Here? in this path to Bliss there is only one thought of a resolute nature there is singleminded determination. This single thought arises from the right source of knowledge. The student of Yoga collects all the dissipated rays of the mind. He gathers all of them through discrimination? dispassion and concentration. He is free from wavering or vacillation of the mind.The worldlyminded man who is suck in the mire of Samsara has no singleminded determination. He entertains countless thoughts. His mind is always unsteady and vacillating.If thoughts cease? Samsara also ceases. Mind generates endless thoughts and this world comes into being. Thoughts? and names and forms are inseparable. If the thoughts are controlled? the mind is controlled and the Yogi is liberated.

Kuru-nandana, O scion of the Kuru dynasty; iha, is this path to Liberation; there is only eka, a single; vyavasayatmika, one-pointed; buddhih, conviction, which has been spoken of in the Yoga of Knowledge and which has the characteristics going to be spoken of in (Karma-) yoga. It is resolute by nature and annuls the numerous branches of the other opposite thoughts, since it originates from the right source of knowledge. [The right source of knowledge, viz the Vedic texts, which are above criticism.] Those again, which are the other buddhayah, thoughts; they are bahu-sakhah, possessed of numerous branches, i.e. possessed of numerous variations. Owing to the influence of their many branches the worldly state becomes endless, limitless, unceasing, ever-growing and extensive. [Endless, because it does not cease till the rixe of full enlightenment; limitless, because the worldly state, which is an effect, springs from an unreal source.] But even the worldly state ceases with the cessation of the infinite branches of thoughts, under the influence of discriminating wisdom arising from the valid source of knowledge. (And those thoughts are) hi, indeed; anantah, innumerable under every branch. Whose thoughts? Avyavasayinam, of the irresolute ones, i.e. of those who are devoid of discriminating wisdom arising from the right source of knowledg.

Here, i.e., in every ritual sanctioned by the scriptures, the Buddhi or disposition of mind marked by resolution, is single. The Buddhi marked by resolution is the Buddhi concerned with acts which must be performed by one desirous of release (and not any kind of work). The term 'Vyavasaya' menas unshakable conviction: this Buddhi (disposition of mind) comes out of prior determination about the true nature of the self. But the Buddhi concerning the performance of rituals of fulfill certain desires, is marked by irresolution; because here only this much knowledge of the self is sufficient - 'the self (as an entity) exists differently from the body.' Such a general understanding is sufficient to alify for performing acts giving fulfilment of certain desires. It does not reire any definite knowledge about the true nature of the self. For, even if there is no such knowledge, desires for heaven etc., can arise, the means for their attainment can be adopted, and the experience of those fruits can take place. For this reason there is no contradiction in the teaching of the scriptures. [The contradiction negated here is how can the same scriptural acts produce different results - fulfilment of desires and liberation. The difference in the disposition of the mind accouts of it.]
The Buddhi (mental disposition) marked by resolution has a single aim, because it relates to the attainment of a single fruit. For, as far as one desiring release is concerned, all acts are enjoined only for the accomplishment of that single fruit. Therefore, since the purpose of the scriptures here is one only (i.e., liberation), the Buddhi regarding all rituals taught in the scriptures too is only one, as far as liberation-seekers are concerned. For example, the set of six sacrifices, beginning with Agneya with all their subsidiary processes (though enjoined in different passages) forms the subject of a single injunction, as they are all for the attainment of a single fruit. Conseently the Buddhi concerning these is one only. The meaning of the verse under discussion must be construed in the same manner. But the Buddhi of the irresolute ones who are engaged in rituals for winning such fruits as heaven, sons, cattle, food etc., are endless, frutis being endless. In rituals like Darsapurnamasa (new moon and full moon sacrifice), even though attainment of a single fruit (heaven) is enjoined, there accrues to these the character of having many branches on account of the mention of many secondary fruits as evidenced by such passages as, 'He desires a long life.' Therefore the Buddhi of irresolute ones has many branches and are endless.
The purport is: In performing obligatory and occasional rituals, all fruits, primary and secondary, promised in the scriptures, should be abandoned, with the idea that release or salvation is the only purpose of all scripture-ordained rituals. These rituals should be performed without any thought of selfish gains. In addition, acts motivated by desires (Kamya-karmas) also should be performed according to one's own capacity, after abandoning all desire for fruits and with the conviction that they also, when performed in that way, form the means for attainment of release. They should be looked upon as eal to obligatory and occasional rites suited to one's own station and stage in life.
Sri Krsna condemns those who perform acts for the attainment of objects of desire: