Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 44

व्याख्या -- 'तयापहृतचेतसाम्'-- पूर्वश्लोकोंमें जिस पुष्पित वाणीका वर्णन किया गया है उस वाणीसे जिनका चित्त अपहृत हो गया है अर्थात् स्वर्गमें बड़ा भारी सुख है दिव्य नन्दनवन है अप्सराएँ हैं अमृत है ऐसी वाणीसे जिनका चित्त उन भोगोंकी तरफ खिंच गया है।
'भोगैश्वर्यप्रसक्तानाम्'-- शब्द स्पर्श रूप रस और गन्ध ये पाँच विषय शरीरका आराम मान और नामकी बड़ाई इनके द्वारा सुख लेनेका नाम भोग है। भोगोंके लिये पदार्थ रूपयेपैसे मकान आदिका जो संग्रह किया जाता है उसका नाम ऐश्वर्य है। इन भोग और ऐश्वर्यमें जिनकी आसक्ति है प्रियता है खिंचाव है अर्थात् इनमें जिनकी महत्त्वबुद्धि है उनको 'भोगैश्वर्यप्रसक्तानाम्' कहा गया है।
जो भोग और ऐश्वर्यमें ही लगे रहते हैं वे आसुरी सम्पत्तिवाले होते हैं। कारण कि असु नाम प्राणोंका है और उन प्राणोंको जो बनाये रखना चाहते हैं उन प्राणपोषणपरायण लोगोंका नाम असुर है। वे शरीरकी प्रधानताको लेकर यहाँके अथवा स्वर्गके भोग भोगना चाहते हैं (टिप्पणी प0 80) ।
'व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धिः समाधौ न विधीयते'-- जो मनुष्यजन्मका असली ध्येय है जिसके लिये मनुष्यशरीर मिला है उस परमात्माको ही प्राप्त करना है ऐसी व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धि उन लोगोंमें नहीं होती। तात्पर्य यह है कि जो भोग भोगे जा चुके हैं जो भोग भोगे जा सकते हैं जिन भोगोंको सुन रखा है और जो भोग सुने जा सकते हैं उनके संस्कारोंके कारण बुद्धिमें जो मलिनता रहती है उस मलिनताके कारण संसारसे सर्वथा विरक्त होकर एक परमात्माकी तरफ चलना है ऐसा दृढ़ निश्चय नहीं होता। ऐसे ही संसारकी अनेक विद्याओं कलाओं आदिका जो संग्रह है उससे मैं विद्वान हूँ मैं जानकार हूँ ऐसा जो अभिमानजन्य सुखका भोग होता है उसमें आसक्त मनुष्योंका भी परमात्मप्राप्तिका एक निश्चय नहीं होता।
विशेष बात
परमदयालु प्रभुने कृपा करके इस मनुष्यशरीरमें एक ऐसी विलक्षण विवेकशक्ति दी है जिससे वह सुखदुःखसे ऊँचा उठ जाय अपना उद्धार कर ले सबकी सेवा करके भगवान्तकको अपने वशमें कर ले इसीमें मनुष्यशरीरकी सार्थकता है। परन्तु प्रभुप्रदत्त इस विवेकशक्तिका अनादर करके नाशवान् भोग और संग्रहमें आसक्त हो जाना पशुबुद्धि है। कारण कि पशुपक्षी भी भोगोंमें लगे रहते हैं ऐसे ही अगर मनुष्य भी भोगोंमें लगा
रहे तो पशुपक्षियोंमें और मनुष्यमें अन्तर ही क्या रहा
पशुपक्षी तो भोगयोनि है अतः उनके सामने कर्तव्यका प्रश्न ही नहीं है। परन्तु मनुष्यजन्म तो केवल अपने कर्तव्यका पालन करके अपना उद्धार करनेके लिये ही मिला है भोग भोगनेके लिये नहीं। इसलिये मनुष्यके सामने जो कुछ अनुकूलप्रतिकूल परिस्थिति आती है वह सब साधनसामग्री है भोगसामग्री नहीं। जो उसको भोगसामग्री मान लेते हैं उनकी परमात्मामें व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धि नहीं होती।
वास्तवमें सांसारिक पदार्थ परमात्माकी तरफ चलनेमें बाधा नहीं देते प्रत्युत वर्तमानमें जो भोगोंका महत्व अन्तःकरणमें बैठा हुआ है वही बाधा देता है। भोग उतना नहीं अटकाते जितना भोगोंका महत्व अटकाता है। अटकानेमें अपनी रुचि नीयतकी प्रधानता है। भोग और संग्रहकी रुचिको रखते हुए कोई परमात्माको प्राप्त करना चाहे तो परमात्माकी प्राप्ति तो दूर रही उनकी प्राप्तिका एक निश्चय भी नहीं हो सकता। कारण कि जहाँ परमात्माकी तरफ चलनेकी रुचि है वहीं भोगोंकी रुचि भी है। जबतक भोग और संग्रहमें मानबड़ाईआराममें रुचि है तबतक कोई भी एक निश्चय करके परमात्मामें नहीं लग सकता क्योंकि उसका अन्तःकरण भोगोंकी रुचिद्वारा हर लिया गया उसकी जो शक्ति थी वह भोग और संग्रहमें लग गयी।
सम्बन्ध-- किसी बातको पुष्ट करना हो तो पहले उसके दोनों पक्ष सामने रखकर फिर उसको पुष्ट किया जाता है। यहाँ भगवान् निष्कामभावको पुष्ट करना चाहते हैं अतः पीछेके तीन श्लोकोंमें सकामभाववालोंका वर्णन करके अब आगेके श्लोकमें निष्काम होनेकी प्रेरणा करते हैं।

जो भोग और ऐश्वर्यमें आसक्त हैं अर्थात् भोग और ऐश्वर्य ही पुरषार्थ है ऐसे मानकर उनमें ही जिनका प्रेम हो गया है इस प्रकार जो तद्रूप हो रहे हैं तथा क्रियाभेदोंको विस्तारपूर्वक बतलानेवाली उस उपर्युक्त वाणीद्वारा जिनका चित्त हर लिया गया है अर्थात् ( जिनकी ) विवेकबुद्धि आच्छादित हो रही है उनकी समाधिमें सांख्यविषयक या योगविषयक निश्चयात्मिका बुद्धि ( नहीं ठहरती )। पुरुषके भोगके लिये जिसमें सब कुछ स्थापित किया जाता है उसका नाम समाधि है। इस व्युत्पत्तिके अनुसार समाधि अन्तःकरणका नाम है उसमें बुद्धि नहीं ठहरती अर्थात् उत्पन्न ही नहीं होती।

'Objection: Since for those devoted to the Karma-kanda, the performers of action, there is the possibility of the combination of the two intellects regarding means and end arising in the internal organ through the purification of the intellect, therefore liberation will occur?' He says 'No' with 'Tesham ca' (And of them). Being of the nature of that—in those very enjoyment and power, superimposed as one's duty, with the mind engrossed; meaning those possessing the superimposition of identity, the extroverted ones. 'Still, through discriminative wisdom following the scriptures, the resolute intellect will arise for them?' Raising this doubt, he says 'Taya' (by that). 'Objection: Samadhi is said to be twofold, divided into Samprajnata and Asamprajnata; there, since the prescription of the two intellects is not applicable, how is it denied?' To this he says 'Samadhiyate' (is concentrated/deposited).

'Tesham'—of those attached to enjoyment and power, whose minds are excessively impassioned; since whose 'Chetas' (mind) is stolen, covered, by that speech; of them; 'Vyavasayatmika'—the intellect which is in Sankhya or Yoga; that; in 'Samadhi'—in the internal organ wherein everything is deposited for the enjoyment of the soul; 'Na vidhiyate'—does not become steady; this is the meaning. 'Objection: The state 'I am Brahman' is Samadhi, for the sake of that; or one-pointedness of mind—inclination towards one-pointedness on the Supreme Lord—in that [the resolute intellect does not occur]; why were these two explanations not displayed by the Acharya?' If you ask this: Understand that it is intending the inclusion of the state 'I am Brahman' and the inclination towards one-pointedness on the Supreme Lord within the resolute Sankhya-Yoga intellect.

For them, the intellect characterized by the determination of proper reasoning is not formed in Samadhi—for the sake of Samadhi. For those whose goals are properly determined, the concentration of the mind on the Lord happens properly. For that indeed is the means to liberation. And this is stated elsewhere: "For him, even the most excellent speeches were not sufficient for grasping the truth directly..." [Bhag. 5.11.3].

"Bhoga" [etc.]. For men whose minds are stolen by that flowery speech, the intellect in "Samadhi"—at the time of practicing Samadhi—"Vyavasayatmika"—'Vyavasaya' is knowledge, consisting of that—having the form of pure consciousness alone—"is not formed"—does not come into being. The tense is reflexive passive. For indeed, the intellect of the dispassionate takes the form of pure consciousness in Samadhi, but not of one attached to enjoyment etc.; this is quite clear. But in the Bhashya, it is explained that the resolute intellect does not exist in "Samadhi"—in the internal organ. Or, it should be explained that for them, the determined intellect for the very purpose of practicing Samadhi does not exist.

"Tesham"—of those attached to enjoyment and power; "by that speech"—having enjoyment and power as its subject; whose self-knowledge has been stolen; the mentioned "resolute intellect"; in "Samadhi"—in the mind; "is not formed"—is not produced. "Self-knowledge is deposited in this," thus Samadhi means the mind. In their mind, the intellect regarding action which is the means to liberation—preceded by the determined knowledge of the true nature of the Self—is never produced; this is the meaning. Therefore, attachment to desire-driven actions should not be formed by the seeker of liberation. Thus, why do the Vedas—engaged in the sustenance of souls with affection greater than even thousands of mothers and fathers—speak of actions yielding extremely small fruits and resulting in rebirth? Or how are those stated by the Vedas said to be fit for abandonment? To this, he says—

And therefore "Bhogaisvaryaprasaktanam". Of those "Prasakta"—engrossed—in enjoyment and power. Whose mind is stolen—attracted—by that flowery speech; of them; "Samadhi"—one-pointedness of mind, (meaning) inclination towards one-pointedness on the Supreme Lord; in that, the determined intellect "is not formed". It is a usage in the reflexive passive. The meaning is: it is not produced.

महर्षि व्यास ऐसे पहले साहसी क्रान्तिकारी थे जिन्होंने अपने काल में अत्यन्त शोचनीय पतन की स्थिति से हिन्दू संस्कृति का पुनरुत्थान किया। क्रान्ति का वह ग्रन्थ गीता है जिसकी रचना उन्होंने की। अपने काल की स्थितियों की उनके द्वारा की गयी तीव्र आलोचना भगवान् के इन शब्दों से स्पष्ट होती है जहां श्रीकृष्ण वेदों के कर्मकाण्ड को पुष्पिता वाणी कहते हैं। कर्मकाण्ड की तीव्र आलोचना करने में व्यास जी के साहस को समझने के लिये हमें उस काल के पुरोगामी पारम्परिक वातावरण की कल्पना करनी होगी हमें मानसिक रूप से उस काल में रहना होगा।वेदों का कर्मकाण्ड उन लोगों के लिए है जो विषयोपभोग और ऐश्वर्य में अत्यन्त आसक्त हैं कर्मफल पाने की इच्छा और चिन्ता के कारण जिनकी सदसद् विवेक की क्षमता खो गयी है। सर्वोच्च साध्य को भूलकर साधनभूत कर्मों में ही वे लिप्त रहते हैं।वेदोक्त कर्मों को अत्यन्त परिश्रमपूर्वक करना पड़ता है तब मृत्यु के पश्चात् स्वर्ग के रूप में उनका फल प्राप्त होता है जहाँ अलौकिक विषयों का उपभोग किया जा सकता है। इन सब प्रयत्नों में कामनाओं और चिन्ताओं आदि के कारण व्यक्तित्व के विकास के लिये अवसर नहीं मिलता इसलिये व्यास जी का विचार है कि अध्यात्म की दृष्टि से ये सकाम कर्म निरर्थक हैं। कर्मकाण्ड में आसक्त पुरुष जीवन के परम साध्य को भूलकर साधन में ही फंसा रह जाता है।अनन्तस्वरूप परम सत्य के प्रतिपादक के रूप में श्रीकृष्ण उन लोगों की हँसी उड़ाते हैं जो साधन को ही साध्य मानने की त्रुटि करते हैं। कर्मकाण्ड में ही उपदिष्ट केवल कर्तव्य कर्म के पालन से चित्त शुद्धि एवं एकाग्रता प्राप्त होती है और इस प्रकार ध्यान का अभ्यास करने की योग्यता पाकर उपनिषदों में निरूपित निदिध्यासन के द्वारा आत्मा का अपरोक्ष अनुभव प्राप्त होता है जो जीवन का वास्तविक साध्य है। कर्म में ही रत पुरुषों को जीवन में कभी शान्ति नहीं मिलती।अविवेकी कामी पुरुषों को क्या फल मिलता है भगवान् कहते हैं

And thus "Yam imam" etc. Those who are desirous of objects, they themselves speak this Vedic speech which is "flowery"—pervaded by the future fruit of heaven. Therefore, those who desire action alone as the fruit of birth are the "unwise". And they, having their minds stolen by that very Vedic speech imagined by themselves, even though possessing resolute intellect [regarding rituals], are not fit for Samadhi, due to certainty regarding the fruit there. This is the purport of the three verses.

To remove the lack of clarity regarding 'Taya apahrita' etc., he states the meaning with 'Tesham'. Their intellect—mental function—is not resolute, (meaning) characterized by determination through proper reasoning. For that very reason, it is not formed for proper concentration on the Lord; this is the meaning. 'In the absence of determination through proper reasoning, whence is the absence of Samadhi?' To this he says 'Samyak'. By this, the meaning of the word 'Samadhi' is also revealed. 'What is the use of concentrating the mind on the Lord, by the absence of which there would be censure?' To this he says 'Taddhi' (For that indeed). And the absence of liberation is great censure. He will say [this]. 'Of those whose goals are properly determined'—thus it is said. Not only is it experiential, but it is also stated in the Puranas; thus he says 'Uktam ca'. 'Variyasih' means 'Variyasyah' (most excellent). By the rule 'Supam suluk...' (Panini 7.1.39) etc., there is the substitution of the case ending 'Jas'. 'Vacah'—Vedic speeches. 'Svapne niruktya'—by the example of objects perceived in a dream; 'heyanumitam'—inferred as fit to be abandoned. This indeed is 'having the goal properly determined'. That which is the abandonment of what is to be rejected and the acceptance of what is to be accepted through discrimination between the rejectable and acceptable; 'that indeed is the means to liberation'—this is well-known in the Srutis etc.

'Why does the resolute intellect not occur even for the irresolute, given the equality of the evidence (means)?' Having raised this doubt, [he] says in three [verses] that it does not occur due to the existence of obstacles. The connection is: For the unwise whose minds are stolen by that speech which they utter—'this [flowery] speech'—the resolute intellect does not exist. 'This'—well-known as being acquired through the injunction of study. 'Flowery'—pleasing at first sight like a flowering Palasha tree, due to the appearance of the connection between means and end, and due to the absence of unsurpassed fruit. Why is there an absence of unsurpassed fruit? To that, he says 'giving birth, action, and fruit'. 'Birth' characterized by connection with a new body, senses, etc.; and 'action' dependent on that, caused by identification with various castes and stages of life; and 'fruit' dependent on that, characterized by son, cattle, heaven, etc., which is perishable—[that speech] gives these intensely, without interruption like a water-wheel; thus [it is described]. Why is it so? To this he says 'abounding in specific rites towards the attainment of enjoyment and power'. Enjoyment dependent on drinking nectar, sporting with Urvashi, fragrance of Parijata, etc.; and power which is the cause of that, [namely] lordship over Devas etc.; towards the attainment of these two; abounding in specific rites like Agnihotra, Darshapurnamasa, Jyotishtoma, etc., which are the means. Meaning: expounding a multitude of rites for attaining enjoyment and power in great abundance. Indeed, it is well known that the Karma-kanda is far more extensive everywhere than the Jnana-kanda. They speak such speech characterized by the Karma-kanda; they accept it as excellent, having heaven etc. as the ultimate fruit. Who? Those who are 'unwise'—devoid of the knowledge of the purport generated by inquiry. Therefore 'delighting in the Veda-vada'. The statements—eulogies (Arthavadas)—that exist in the Veda, such as 'The merit of the performer of Chaturmasya sacrifice is indeed imperishable,' etc.; delighting only in those; satisfied by false confidence that 'this is exactly so' regarding the truth of the Vedic meaning. O Partha, therefore 'saying there is nothing else'. Those accustomed to saying that there is no Jnana-kanda other than the Karma-kanda because the entire Veda is intent on action, and that there is no unsurpassed fruit of knowledge other than the fruit of action. The meaning is: speakers of meanings contrary to the Jnana-kanda through great elaboration. Why are they haters of liberation? Because they are 'full of desire'—consisting of desire due to the mind being agitated by hundreds of desired objects. This being so, why do they not desire liberation too? Because they are 'intent on heaven'—those for whom heaven alone, characterized by being with Urvashi etc., is the highest, superior goal. Being deluded that there is no human goal beyond heaven, due to the absence of discrimination and dispassion, they are unable to bear even the talk of liberation; this is the import. And of them—who are attached to the aforementioned enjoyment and power, whose minds are absorbed due to not seeing the defects like perishability etc.; whose minds—discriminative knowledge—are stolen, covered, by that speech abounding in specific rites; for such people, who are unable to know even the well-known fact that Arthavadas are for praise [and that] the validity of the Veda is in the subject of its purport which is uncontradicted by other means of knowledge... the resolute intellect is not formed in the 'Samadhi'—in the internal organ (mind). Meaning: it does not occur. Or, the resolute intellect regarding the Samadhi (concentration/Self) does not occur for them. Because the locative case is equal in the sense of location or subject matter. 'Vidhiyate' is the verbal ending in the reflexive passive. By the derivation 'everything is deposited in this,' Samadhi means the internal organ or the Supreme Self; thus there is no assumption of an obscure meaning. However, in the explanation that Samadhi is the state of 'I am Brahman' and the resolute intellect is not produced for the sake of that, only the conventional meaning is respected. This is the idea: Although desire-driven Agnihotra etc. are not different from those [performed] for purification, yet due to the defect of desire for fruit, they do not accomplish purity of the heart (ashaya-shuddhim). Purity suitable for enjoyment is indeed not useful for knowledge. To show exactly this, 'of those attached to enjoyment and power' is mentioned again. But actions done without desire for fruit generate purity useful for knowledge; thus the difference in fruit between the wise and the unwise is established. And this will be propounded in detail later.

Therefore, of those attached to enjoyment and power, whose minds are stolen by that speech; in 'Samadhi'—in the contemplation of the Lord, due to the state of distraction—such intellect does not exist; this is the meaning.

'Of those attached to enjoyment and power'—[meaning] those who have affection only for enjoyment and power, thinking 'enjoyment is to be done and power [is to be attained],' and who have become identified with them. 'Whose minds are stolen'—whose discriminative wisdom is covered—by that speech abounding in specific rites. The 'resolute' intellect—in Sankhya or Yoga; in 'Samadhi'—'everything is deposited herein for the enjoyment of the Person (Purusha),' thus Samadhi means the internal organ [or] intellect; in that Samadhi, 'is not formed'—meaning it does not exist. What the fruit is for those who are thus devoid of discriminative intellect, those of desirous nature, [he] states that—

Of those of such nature—whose minds are stolen by that speech, who are intent on desire-driven actions—the one resolute intellect relating to Samadhi is not formed. Or, is not established specifically. In their "Samadhi"—[meaning] in the heart.

भोगैश्वर्यप्रसक्तानाम् of the people deeply attached to pleasure and lordship? तया by that? अपहृतचेतसाम् whose minds are drawn away? व्यवसायात्मिका determinate? बुद्धिः reason? समाधौ in Samadhi? न not? विधीयते is fixed.Commentary Those who cling to pleasure and power cannot have steadiness of mind. They cannot concentrate or meditate. They are ever busy in planning projects for the acisition of wealth and power. Their minds are ever restless. They have no poised understanding.

And vyavasayatmika, one-pointed; buddhih, conviction, with regard to Knowledge or Yoga; na vidhiyate, does not become established, i.e. does not arise; samadhau, in the minds the word samadhi being derived in the sese of that into which everthing is gathered together for the enjoyment of a person ; bhoga-aisvarya-prasaktanam, of those who delight in enjoyment and wealth, of those who have the hankering that only enjoyment as also wealth is to be sought for, of those who identify themselves with these; and apahrta-cetasam, of those whose intellects are carried away, whose discriminating judgement becomes covered; taya, by that speech which is full of various special rites.

The ignorant, whose knowledge is little, and who have as their sole aim the attainment of enjoyment and power, speak the flowery language i.e., having its flowers (show) only as fruits, which look apparently beautiful at first sight. They rejoice in the letter of the Vedas i.e., they are attached to heaven and such other results (promised in the Karma-kanda of the Vedas). They say that there is nothing else, owing to their intense attachment to these results. They say that there is no fruit superior to heaven etc. They are full of worldly desires and their minds are highly attached to secular desires. They hanker for heaven, i.e. think of the enjoyment of the felicities of heaven, after which one can again have rirth which offers again the opportunity to perform varied rites devoid of true knowledge and leads towards the attainment of enjoyments and power once again.
With regard to those who cling to pleasure and power and whose understanding is contaminated by that flowery speech relating to pleasure and lordly powers, the aforesaid mental disposition characterised by resolution, will not arise in their Samadhi. Samadhi here means the mind. The knowledge of the self will not arise in such minds. In the minds of these persons, there cannot arise the mental disposition that looks on all Vedic rituals as means for liberation based on the determined conviction about the real form of the self. Hence, in an aspirant for liberation, there should be no attachment to rituals out of the conviction that they are meant for the acisition of objects of desire only.
It may be estioned why the Vedas, which have more of love for Jivas than thousands of parents, and which are endeavouring to save the Jivas, should prescribe in this way rites whose fruits are infinitesimal and which produce only new births. It can also be asked if it is proper to abandon what is given in the Vedas. Sri Krsna replies to these estions.