Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 50

व्याख्या--'बुद्धियुक्तो जहातीह उभे सुकृतदुष्कृते'-- समतायुक्त मनुष्य जीवित अवस्थामें ही पुण्य-पापका त्याग कर देता है अर्थात् उसको पुण्य-पाप नहीं लगते, वह उनसे रहित हो जाता है। जैसे संसारमें पुण्य-पाप होते ही रहते हैं, पर सर्वव्यापी परमात्माको वे पुण्य-पाप नहीं लगते, ऐसे ही जो समतामें निरन्तर स्थित रहता है, उसको पुण्यपाप नहीं लगते (गीता 2। 38)।
समता एक ऐसी विद्या है जिससे मनुष्य संसारमें रहता हुआ ही संसारसे सर्वथा निर्लिप्त रह सकता है। जैसे कमलका पत्ता जलसे ही उत्पन्न होता है, और जलमें ही रहता है, पर वह जलसे लिप्त नहीं होता, ऐसे ही समतायुक्त पुरुष संसारमें रहते हुए भी संसारसे निर्लिप्त रहता है। पुण्य-पाप उसका स्पर्श नहीं करते अर्थात् वह पुण्य-पापसे असङ्ग हो जाता है।
वास्तवमें यह स्वयं (चेतन-स्वरूप) पुण्य-पापसे रहित ही। केवल असत् पदार्थों--शरीरादिके साथ सम्बन्ध जोड़नेसे ही पुण्य-पाप लगते हैं। अगर यह असत् पदार्थोंके साथ सम्बन्ध न जोड़े, तो यह आकाशकी तरह निर्लिप्त रहेगा, इसको पुण्य-पापनहीं लगेंगे।
'तस्माद्योगाय युज्यस्व'-- इसलिये तुम योगमें लग जाओ अर्थात् निरन्तर समतामें स्थित रहो। वास्तवमें समता तुम्हारा स्वरूप है। अतः तुम नित्य-निरन्तर समतामें ही स्थित रहते हो। केवल राग-द्वेषके कारण तुम्हारेको उस समताका अनुभव नहीं हो रहा है। अगर तुम हरदम समतामें स्थित न रहते, तो सुख और दुःखका ज्ञान तुम्हें कैसे होता; क्योंकि ये दोनों ही अलग-अलग हैं। जब इन दोनोंका तुम्हें ज्ञान होता है तो तुम इनके आने-जानेमें सदा समरूपसे रहते हो। इसी समताका तुम अनुभव करो।
'योगः कर्मसु कौशलम्'-- कर्मोंमें योग ही कुशलता है अर्थात् कर्मोंकी सिद्धि-असिद्धिमें और उन कर्मोंके फलके प्राप्ति-अप्राप्तिमें सम रहना ही कर्मोंमें कुशलता है। उत्पत्ति-विनाशशील कर्मोंमें योगके सिवाय दूसरी कोई महत्त्वकी चीज नहीं है।
इन पदोंमें भगवान्ने योगकी परिभाषा नहीं बतायी है, प्रत्युत योगकी महिमा बतायी है। अगर इन पदोंका अर्थ
'कर्मोंमें कुशलता ही योग है'--ऐसा किया जाय तो क्या आपत्ति है? अगर ऐसा अर्थ किया जायगा तो जो बड़ी कुशलतासे, सावधानीपूर्वक चोरी करता है, उसका वह चोरीरूप कर्म भी योग हो जायगा। अतः ऐसा अर्थ करना अनुचित है। कोई कह सकता है कि हम तो विहित कर्मोंको ही कुशलतापूर्वक करनेका नाम योग मानते हैं। परन्तु ऐसा माननेसे मनुष्य कुशलतापूर्वक साङ्गोपाङ्ग किये गये कर्मोंके फलमें बँध जायगा, जिससे उसकी स्थिति समतामें नहीं रहेगी। अतः यहाँ 'कर्मोंमें योग ही कुशलता है'--ऐसा अर्थ लेना ही उचित है। कारण कि कर्मोंको करते हुए भी जिसके अन्तःकरणमें समता रहती है, वह कर्म और उनके फलमें बँधेगा नहीं। इसलिये उत्पत्ति-विनाशशील कर्मोंको करते हुए सम रहना ही कुशलता है, बुद्धिमानी है।
दूसरी बात, पीछेके दो श्लोकोंमें तथा इस श्लोकके पूर्वार्धमें भी योग (समता) का ही प्रसङ्ग है, कुशलताका प्रसङ्ग ही नहीं है। इसलिये भी कर्मोंमें योग ही कुशलता है-- यह अर्थ लेना प्रसङ्गके अनुसार युक्तियुक्त है।

समत्वबुद्धिसे युक्त होकर स्वधर्माचरण करनेवाला पुरुष जिस फलको पाता है वह सुन
समत्वयोगविषयक बुद्धिसे युक्त हुआ पुरुष अन्तःकरणकी शुद्धिके और ज्ञानप्राप्तिके द्वारा सुकृतदुष्कृतको पुण्यपाप दोनोंको यहीं त्याग देता है इसी लोकमें कर्मबन्धनसे मुक्त हो जाता है। इसलिये तू समत्वबुद्धिरूप योगकी प्राप्तिके लिये यत्न कर चेष्टा कर।
क्योंकि योग ही तो कर्मोंमें कुशलता है अर्थात् स्वधर्मरूप कर्ममें लगे हुए पुरुषका जो ईश्वरसमर्पित बुद्धिसे उत्पन्न हुआ सिद्धिअसिद्धिविषयक समत्वभाव है वही कुशलता है।
यही इसमें कौशल है कि स्वभावसे ही बन्धन करनेवाले जो कर्म हैं वे भी समत्व बुद्धिके प्रभावसे अपने स्वभावको छोड़ देते हैं अतः तू समत्वबुद्धिसे युक्त हो।

Regarding the doubt as to what happens to one endowed with the previously mentioned wisdom of equanimity and engaged in the performance of one's own duty (Svadharma), He says—"samatva" (equanimity), etc. Here, "performing action called Svadharma while endowed with wisdom" is the implied remainder.

Stating the resultant import of Buddhi-yoga being fruitful, He says—"tasmat" (therefore), etc. He explains the first half (of the verse) with "buddhi", etc.

(Objection): It is not logical that mere wisdom of equanimity causes the cessation of merit and demerit (Punya and Papa), because that cessation is well-known to belong (only) to one who has the Vision of Ultimate Reality? To this, (the commentator) says—"sattva" (through purification of mind...), etc. He explains the second half with "tasmat", etc.

Regarding the doubt: While performing Svadharma, why should the mind be applied for the sake of the said Yoga? He says—"yogah hi" (for Yoga is indeed...), etc.

(Objection): Then, if the indicated result is accomplished merely by the power of the said Yoga, one might arrive at a lack of regard for the performance of Svadharma? To this, He says—"svadharmakhyeshu" (in actions called Svadharma...), etc. The construction is: For one present in actions with a mind offered to God and devoted to performance, the said wisdom (equanimity) is the "kaushalam" (skill) in those (actions). Since actions are by nature binding, there might be a connection to bondage in their performance; doubting this, He clarifies the very skill—"taddhi" (that indeed...), etc.

The fact that the wisdom of equanimity is thus fruitful being established, He concludes with the resultant import—"tasmat" (therefore), etc.

Having stated the inferiority of desire-prompted action, He states the superiority of desireless action.

"Samatvabuddhiyuktah" (Endowed with the wisdom of equanimity)—means one who abandons both Punya (merit) and Papa (sin) through the purification of the mind (Sattva) and the attainment of knowledge. Or, (it means) one endowed with Sankhya-buddhi (Self-knowledge). "Tasmat" (Therefore) "yogaya" (for Yoga)—meaning, for the sake of performing Karma Yoga characterized by equanimity (strive/engage); or (it means strive) for the sake of attaining Jnana Yoga (Knowledge Yoga).

Because "Yogah"—Yoga characterized by equanimity—is "kaushalam" (skill) "karmasu" (in actions), in all actions. Meaning: it is the dexterity to render those (actions), which are (ordinarily) binding, into means for Liberation (Moksha) by offering the mind to the Lord (Ishvara). Or, (Yoga) means Jnana Yoga. In this view, it should be explained as the dexterity to gain Knowledge by abandoning the desire for fruit in actions that are (otherwise) obstacles to Knowledge.

Therefore, become endowed with equanimity; this is the meaning.

(Describing the fruit of knowledge with "Buddhiyukta" etc.): One endowed with wisdom abandons even 'Sukrita' (merit), which yields unpleasant results like human birth, but does not abandon the 'Great Fruit' (Brihat-phala i.e., Moksha) caused by worship (Upasana) etc. His action is not destroyed (in the absolute sense), because of Shruti texts like "Without knowing this (Imperishable), he who performs fire sacrifices, offers oblations... that work of his has an end indeed" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.8.10). Therefore, scriptures speaking of the destruction of karma apply to the ignorant (or to unwanted karma). The scripture speaking of the destruction of both (merit and demerit) also refers to unwanted results. There is no purpose in the destruction of desired merit. Nor is the destruction of what is desired logical for the Knower.

For certain objects are desired (in liberation), as per Shruti texts: "If he desires the world of fathers, by his mere will fathers rise up" (Chandogya 8.2.1); "I attain the assembly and house of Prajapati... may I become the glory of the Brahmins" (Chandogya 8.14.1); "With women or vehicles..." (Chandogya 8.12.3); "From this very Self, whatever he desires, he creates that" (Brihadaranyaka 1.4.15); "Eating what he likes, assuming forms at will, he wanders" (Taittiriya 3.10.5); "He becomes one-fold..." (Chandogya 7.26.2). Even though the Bliss of the Self is vast, since it is desired again, there is no contradiction with the happiness of action (in liberation); and the capacity for this experience comes from the Grace of the Lord and from Shruti.

And this is not just before the fall of the body, but also later (in liberation), because it is heard in subsequent texts like "He moves about there" (Chandogya 8.12.3) and "Having approached this Anandamaya Atman..." (Taittiriya 3.10.5). He does not become completely 'one' (ekibhuta) with Brahman. For in the Moksha Dharma, it is censured: "For one merged in the Great Ignorance, what greater sorrow could there be?" Also, because separate enjoyment is mentioned (in liberation), because Shuka and others are seen as separate, and because the limit of lordship is stated as "Except for the power of creating the world" (Brahma Sutra 4.4.17). Also, Gita 14.3 says, "Resorting to this knowledge, having attained My likeness...". If the limiting adjunct (Upadhi) is destroyed, the reflection (Pratibimba) would also be destroyed (if absolute identity is held). We do not see any proof for a 'merged' entity having separate knowledge. And because of the contradiction with the knowledge "I was miserable, I am not (now)," since God is devoid of misery. The phrase "Anena rupena" (by this form) does not imply an absence of difference. In the world, we do not see the identity of the reflection with the object, nor is there proof for the destruction of the Upadhi (in a way that merges them). The state of being "merged" is described as sorrowful in "Magnasya hi...". And because Upadhi is stated to be eternal in "Yavadatmabhavitvat..." (Brahma Sutra 2.3.30).

Therefore, statements of "non-difference," though appearing as such, are figurative. The forms of the Lord were seen as distinct by Narada. In "He becomes one-fold" (Chandogya 7.26.2), they appear as distinct in different branches. When there is a contradiction, the side with reasoning is stronger, and the reasons here are stated as "Magnasya hi", etc. Therefore, the "oneness" is like water in water (meaning unity of place or will, not loss of essence). As stated in "As pure water into pure water..." (Katha Upanishad 4.15) and "As rivers..." (Mundaka 3.2.8). Even there, if they became each other's self, increase (in volume) would be impossible. Even in the ocean, there is a slight difference at the entrance (mouth of the river). Due to vastness, it is not seen elsewhere. In the Maha-Kurma Purana, it says: "The Rishi who observed the vow gave back those very waters." Capable beings perceive the difference. And because of the prohibition in the Narada Purana: "These gods, Brahma, Isha, and others, do not attain that state; that position which is 'Te' (Yours) is Kaivalya." A decisive conclusion with inquiry is made in the Moksha Dharmas. And a decision made with inquiry is stronger than a mere sentence. Therefore, "Where one sees nothing else" (Chandogya 7.24.1) refers to existence dependent on Him. Otherwise, how could there be Lordship etc.?

And it is not said to be illusory (Mayamayam). Nor is there a contradiction with "Verily, for one with a body (there is no freedom from pleasure and pain)..." (Chandogya 8.12.1). Because their (liberated) bodies are distinct/extraordinary. They are non-material (abhautika), constructed by eternal Upadhis through the power of the Lord. As stated in the Narayana-Rama-Kalpa: "Their body is born of the sixteenth Kala alone." And due to their distinction from the worldly, terms of negation like "joyless, blissless... outside of pleasure and pain" are used regarding them. Because they lack physical definition (nirukti), they are not (ordinary) bodies. Thus the Shruti: "Being bodiless... he became possessed of a body." Those bodies do not decay; as per the verse "They are not born at creation, nor disturbed at dissolution" (Gita 14.2). The usage (of the word body) is due to similarity. The usage is seen regarding visible forms in texts like "Without senses, without food, motionless, fragrant..." (Mahabharata 12.337.29) and "Of the residents of Vaikuntha who are devoid of body, senses, and breath" (Bhagavata 7.1.34). Nor is this some other secondary liberation; for in the Aditya Purana, other liberations are negated: "What is the use of saying much here? As long as one does not go to Shvetadvipa, a Yogi cannot be liberated; this is the decision of the Shastra." Those who enter the Lord here, they also go there later. Qualification/fitness is intended here. In Yudhishthira's question, others are censured.

'Sayujya' (union) is like possession (Graha). As stated in the Narayana-Ashtakshara-Kalpa: "Just as Deva-grahas (spirits) etc., having possessed a man, enjoy, so do they enjoy external pleasures in the highest liberation." Therefore, the separation is only from the unwanted (evil); that is indeed complete. From texts like "Pain-less", "Devoid of all sorrow", "Ageless and deathless", "Going where they do not grieve", and due to the absence of specific statements (of sorrow). Those in whom a little (sorrow) is seen have not attained Sayujya; theirs is only Salokya/Samipya etc.; this is due to the remainder of Prarabdha karma. Having exhausted that, they go to Sayujya. That is stated in Vyasayoga: "Sankarshana and all others, after their authority ends, enter the Supreme God Vishnu; there is no doubt here." Therefore, there is total separation from the unwanted.

Even Brahma and others pray for it: "I desire the state of Supreme Brahman, O Supreme Brahman Janardana." And it is established that Moksha is happiness greater even than the position of Brahma etc., from texts like "There is no happiness similar to or greater than Moksha anywhere, except the great Vaishnava Bliss which is beyond speech and mind." Therefore, strive for Yoga—for the means to Knowledge. That indeed is skill in action.

Furthermore—"Buddhya", etc. "Buddhiyuktah" means endowed with the wisdom of equanimity; "Yogaya" means for the Yoga of equanimity; "Yujyasva" means strive. "Yoga" is the wisdom of equanimity in success and failure; it is "Kaushalam" (skill) in actions, which, even though binding, implies imparting to them the capacity to remove bondage.

(Objection): Let one endowed with wisdom abandon 'Dushkrita' (sin/demerit) through actions, for the Shruti says, "One removes sin through Dharma (righteousness)"; but 'Sukrita' (merit), being of the same nature (as Dharma), is difficult to remove by them. So how is it said that he abandons both merit and demerit? (Resolution): The ancients (Pranchah) say: Through the purification of the mind and the generation of Knowledge (he abandons both).

However, the moderns (Arvanchah) say: Having accepted the abandonment of sin in the stated manner, the abandonment of merit also occurs for the Karma Yogi due to the abandonment of fruit. Because, just as the fruit of sin is an obstacle to Moksha, the fruit of merit is also an obstacle to Moksha; and (due to renunciation of fruit) that result is not produced.

As for the incidental (nantariyaka) fruit of merit mentioned by Apastamba using the example of the mango tree (where shade and fragrance come naturally), that does not qualify as 'fruit' (in the binding sense) precisely because it is incidental. Therefore, they say: The Karma Yogi abandons merit and demerit while they are being performed, as they are obstacles to Moksha via their fruits; whereas the Jnani (Knower) abandons them even if they are accumulated—this is the distinction between the two.

One endowed with Buddhi-yoga, while performing action, abandons both 'Sukrita' (merit) and 'Dushkrita' (demerit) which have been accumulated over beginningless time, are infinite, and are the causes of bondage.

Therefore, strive for the said Buddhi-yoga.

"Yogah karmasu kaushalam"—This Buddhi-yoga regarding actions being performed is "Kaushalam", meaning extreme capability (or skill); the meaning is that it is achievable (only) through extreme capability.

He states that one endowed with Buddhi-yoga is superior, with the words "Buddhya" etc.

"Sukrita" is that which leads to heaven etc. (merit), and "Dushkrita" is that which leads to hell etc. (demerit/sin); he abandons or casts off both of these in this very life through the grace (prasada) of the Supreme Lord.

Therefore, "yujyasva"—strive for "Yoga," meaning Karma Yoga performed for that purpose (attaining grace/wisdom).

Because "Kaushalam" (skill) in actions—which is the dexterity to make those very actions, even though they are binding by nature, lead to Liberation (Moksha) through the worship of the Lord—that alone is Yoga.

भावनाओं की दुर्बलताओं से ऊपर उठकर जो पुरुष समत्व बुद्धियुक्त हो जाता है वह पाप और पुण्य दोनों के बन्धनों से मुक्त हो जाता है। पाप और पुण्य मन की धारणायें हैं और उनकी प्रतिक्रियाएँ मन पर वासनाओं के रूप में अंकित होती हैं। मनरूपी विक्षुब्ध समुद्र के साथ जो व्यक्ति तादात्म्य नहीं करता वह वासनाओं की ऊँचीऊँची तरंगों के द्वारा न तो ऊपर फेंका जायेगा और न नीचे ही डुबोया जायेगा। यहाँ वर्णित मन का बुद्धि के साथ युक्त होना ही बुद्धियुक्त शब्द का अर्थ है।
इस सम्पूर्ण प्रकरण में गीता का मानव मात्र को आह्वान है कि वह केवल इन्द्रियों के विषय स्थूल देह और मन के स्तर पर ही न रहे जो उसके व्यक्तित्व का बाह्यतम पक्ष है। इनसे सूक्ष्मतर बुद्धि का उपयोग कर उसको अपने वास्तविक पुरुषत्व को व्यक्त करना चाहिये। प्राणियों की सृष्टि में केवल बौद्धिक क्षमताओं के कारण ही मनुष्य को सर्वोच्च स्थान प्राप्त है। जब तक मनुष्य प्रकृति के इस विशिष्ट उपहार का सम्यक् प्रकार से उपयोग नहीं करता तब तक वह अपने मनुष्यत्व के अधिकार से वंचित ही रह जाता है।
अर्जुन से मानसिक उन्माद त्यागकर वीर पुरुष के समान परिस्थितियों का स्वामी बनकर रहने के लिये भगवान् कहते हैं। उस समय अर्जुन इतना भावुक और दुर्बल हो गया था कि वह अपनी व अन्यों के शारीरिक सुरक्षा की चिन्ता करने लगा था। विकास की सीढ़ी पर मनुष्यत्व को प्राप्त कर जो अपनी विशेष क्षमताओं का पूर्ण उपयोग करता है वही व्यक्ति जन्म जन्मान्तरों में अर्जित वासनाओं के बन्धन से मुक्त हो जाता है। इसलिये तुम योग से युक्त हो जाओ यह भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण का उपदेश है। इसके पूर्व समत्व को योग कहा गया था। अब इस सन्दर्भ में व्यासजी योग की और विशद परिभाषा देते हैं कि कर्म में कुशलता योग है।
किसी भी विषय के शास्त्रीय ग्रन्थ में यदि भिन्नभिन्न अध्यायों में एक ही शब्द की विभिन्न परिभाषायें दी गई हों तो समझने में कठिनाई और भ्रांति होगी। फिर धर्म के इस शास्त्रीय ग्रन्थ में एक ही शब्द की विभिन्न परिभाषायें कैसे बताई हुई हैं उपर्युक्त परिभाषा को ठीक से समझने पर इस समस्या का स्वयं समाधान हो जायेगा। योग की पूर्वोक्त परिभाषा यहाँ भी संग्रहीत है अन्यथा मन के समभाव का अर्थ अकर्मण्यता एवं शिथिलता उत्पन्न करने वाली मन की समता को ही कोई समझ सकता है। इस श्लोक में ऐसी त्रुटिपूर्ण धारणा को दूर करते हुये कहा गया है कि समस्त प्रकार के द्वन्द्वों में मन के सन्तुलन को न खोकर कुशलतापूर्वक कर्म करना ही कम्र्ायोग है।
इस श्लोक के स्पष्टीकरण से श्रीकृष्ण का उद्देश्य ज्ञात होता है कि कर्मयोग की भावना से कर्म करने पर वासनाओं का क्षय होता है। वासनाओं के दबाव से ही मन में विक्षेप उठते हैं। किन्तु वासना क्षय के कारण मन स्थिर और शुद्ध होकर मनन निदिध्यासन और आत्मानुभूति के योग्य बन जाता है।
योग शब्द का इस अथ मेंर् प्रयोग कर व्यास जी हमारे मन में उसके प्रति व्याप्त भ्राँति को दूर कर देते हैं।
समत्व भाव एवं कर्म में कुशलता की क्या आवश्यकता है उत्तर में कहते हैं

"The endowed with wisdom (Buddhiyukta), being intelligent, should abandon desire-driven good and bad deeds"—thus to refute the idea that this is for describing the nature of Yoga, he says "Jnane". "How is action extremely inferior to knowledge?"—to this, "Desire-driven workers are wretched, miserable", "They enter a lower or this world" (Mundaka 1.2.10)—thus it has been said. "Still, how 'inferior by a distance'?"—in this expectation, he stated the fruit of knowledge as distinct from the fruit of action; this is the meaning. He will show the untenability in the apparent meaning later. Here, the abandonment of good deeds entirely like bad deeds appears (to be meant); interpreting that with restriction, he explains "Sukritam". "What kind of unpleasant good deed?"—to this he says "Manushya". He states what is to be excluded with "Na". "Brihat"—characterized by the increase of qualities like knowledge before liberation, and of the nature of increase of bliss after that; whose fruit is that; that "Brihat-phala"; such good deed indeed does not exist, due to absence of cause—to this he says "Upasana". By the word "Adi", action that has ceased (Nivritta karma) is included. "Why the restriction?"—to this he says "Na hasya". "He sacrifices, he gives, he performs penance"—by this (it is done)—this is the remainder. Here by the adjective "Aviditva" (not knowing), the imperishability of the wise one's good deeds is apparent. Or there is use of this Sruti later. "Objection: From hearing 'The uncreated is not (gained) by the created' (Mundaka 1.2.12), these Srutis have a counter-argument?"—to this he says "Atah". Because the specific Sruti is stronger; this is the purport. "Shrutih"—(meaning) hearing. "And his actions are destroyed" (Mundaka 2.2.8)—thus destruction of actions for the wise is also apparent?—if you say this, no; because due to contradiction with scope-less Sruti, this has "Dushkrita" (bad deeds) as its subject. "Then the knower, shaking off merit and sin..." (Mundaka 3.1.3)—thus there is Sruti for the destruction of both for the wise too?—to this he says "Ubhaya". Logic alone has been stated. And the abandonment of all good deeds by the wise is contrary to logic. For instance—is the good deed generated by worship etc. desired by the wise or undesired? In the first case—is it destroyed by his wish or by the nature of knowledge? He refutes the first with "Na hi". By which the wise would desire its destruction—this is the remainder. He refutes the second with "Na ca". Because of the contingency of knowledge not being a human goal; this is the purport. Not the last (undesired)—due to absence of cause for being undesired. "Undesired because fruitless"—to this he says "Ishtah ca". "Kechit"—meaning supernatural (alaukika). Supernatural objects are desired for the liberated. Their attainment is the fruit of good deeds; this is the purport. "The liberated desires objects"—whence is this?—to this he says "Sa yadi". "Yajnah"—famous. From the Brahmanas. "Whatever the liberated desires, that he creates from this Supreme Self." That attainment of desired objects is the fruit of good deeds is also stated by this Sruti. The wise performs worship etc. indeed. "Or good deed is not born from what is done"—this too is refuted by this. "Objection: For what purpose would the liberated desire objects? Not for happiness; because upon the cessation of Avidya which is the covering by knowledge, the happiness of the Self's nature is manifest. Because separate happiness is not accepted. Nor for the cessation of misery; because that is accomplished by the cessation of Avidya itself." Do not say so. Not only Avidya is the covering of the Self's nature, but also the Lord's will. And so He will say. And thus, upon the cessation of Avidya by knowledge, there is cessation of all undesirable things. And the happiness of the nature is manifested much more. But not all. The Supreme Lord, pleased by the action performed after knowledge which has ceased (Nivritta karma), creating objects for the liberated, manifests through their enjoyment the happiness of the nature which was not manifested even by knowledge. And here, proofs have been stated in various places by the Bhashyakara himself. With this very intention, in Sruti etc., it is stated that for the liberated, it is achievable by knowledge alone and achievable by the combination of knowledge and action. "Objection: The happiness of the nature which is achievable by knowledge alone, that itself is abundant; so why accept happiness manifested by enjoyment of objects achievable by action?"—to this he says "Bahutve'pi". It is accepted in the happiness of action—this is the remainder. "How can the liberated, devoid of body and senses, have the power to experience objects?"—to this he says "Anubhava". That is stated—"By the nature of Brahmana, Jaimini (holds)" (Brahma Sutra 4.4.5). Moreover, from the Sruti of taking a body for sport "Wandering taking forms at will" (Taittiriya 3.10.5) etc., the experience of objects for the liberated is reasonable, he says "Shruteh ca". "Objection: The desire for objects etc. heard in the cited Srutis, why can it not be of the time before the fall of the final body?"—to this he says "Na ca". From hearing later "Rising from this body... he wanders there" (Chandogya 8.12.3), "Departing from this world... attains this Anandamaya Atman" (Taittiriya 3.10.5) etc. "Ityadi" is an adverb. Advaitins say: Brahman is the one and only Reality. That alone, differentiated by the difference of adjuncts, attains Jivahood, like the sky differentiated by adjuncts like pot becomes pot-sky etc. There, the Jiva whose knowledge has arisen becomes one with Brahman, like in the destruction of the pot (pot-sky becomes one) with the great sky. There, one (group) holds the difference between Jiva and Brahman and the adjunct to be false. And others hold it to be true. And when that wise one has become one with Brahman, then since the entire difference of fruit characterized by action and factors has dissolved, whence is the enjoyment of objects, for which there would be the subsistence of good deeds?—he refutes that with "Na ca". By the word "Eva", he refutes both difference and non-difference. "Attaining the Supreme Self, the spotless ascetics who have become That; are fit for immortality and do not return, O Lord" (Mahabharata 12.301.78)—thus being spoken by Bhishma with the intention "Became in That"—"Tadbhuta"; suspecting another meaning "The liberated became that Brahman itself," Yudhishthira asked offering an alternative "Do they remember the grief of birth and death or not, O sinless one" (Mahabharata 12.301.80). If the wise become one with Brahman in liberation, then it should be said thus: Do they remember the misery experienced in Samsara or not? The defect of the first is stated: "This is a great defect in liberation, having attained the Rishis who have gone to perfection; if the supreme ascetics remain there in that very Vijnana (consciousness)" (Mahabharata 12.301.82). "Having attained the Rishis who attained perfection before, if the supreme ascetics remain there in liberation in Vijnana—endowed with the remembrance of misery experienced before by Vijnana—then this is a great known defect in liberation." And the defect will be clarified by the Bhashyakara. The second is also refuted—"Magnasya". In the absence of remembrance of previous experience etc., for the sentient being merged in supreme ignorance, would there not be greater misery—excess of misery? Indeed there would be. So thus, because of the censure of this view in Mokshadharma, the wise one does not become one with Brahman; this is the meaning. "Objection: Even if censured by Yudhishthira who is in the position of the opponent, how can what is said by Bhishmacharya be false, since in the refutation, the removal of the defect stated by him is possible?"—to this he says "Parihara". "This was not said by me, but having understood it otherwise, you have refuted it"—with this intention, in the refutation also, because Bhishma states the enjoyment of the liberated by distinctness from the Supreme Self, the wise one does not become one with Brahman; this is the meaning. For instance, Bhishma's statement: "Still, hear the supreme truth here too, properly uttered by me... And the senses know their own body, O King, of the embodied ones. But he, the subtle one, sees those organs of the self" (Mahabharata 12.301.85, 86). Although this is difficult to understand, still, "Svah"—whose body is of his own nature—that "Svadeham"—the Supreme Self—the liberated (knows); and the liberated (knows) other bodies and objects; and the senses of the liberated know (objects). "Are they (senses) the doers?"—He says no with "Karanani". "Then what is the meaning of the first half?"—to this it is said "Sukshma". "For this reason also there is no oneness of the wise with Brahman"—he says "Shukadinam". By these three sentences, Perception, Inference, and Scripture are presented in order regarding the difference of the liberated from Brahman. There, Perception is not a contradictor. "Although Shuka etc. are wise, still, due to having undestroyed adjuncts now, they are seen as having difference caused by that. Upon the destruction of the adjunct due to the exhaustion of Prarabdha karma, having become covered (merged) as Brahman itself, they will not be seen separately"—to this he says "Upadhinashe". It is supported that Jivas are reflections of Brahman; there, if the destruction of their adjunct is accepted, then their destruction follows. Because of seeing the destruction of the reflection of the face etc. in the destruction of the adjunct like a mirror; this is the meaning. And what was said—"Shuka etc. are seen separate from Brahman due to undestroyed adjuncts"—that is false, he says "Na ca". In reality, we do not see any proof for the separate knowledge of one who has become one, even by an adjunct. Because the example of sky etc. is not accepted; and this is a refutation of the view of true adjunct-difference. Moreover, one who says "The difference between Jiva and Brahman is only due to adjuncts, but unity is real"—should be asked: "Is the view that Brahman contemplates only Its own nature devoid of misery, not the misery belonging to the Jiva—that the Jiva alone contemplates? Or that also?" He refutes the first with "Na caikibhootasya". Because of seeing the oneness of the enjoyer even with the difference of adjuncts like hands and feet; this is the purport. He refutes the second with "Asam". Here "Lan" (imperfect tense) is for implying all times. "There is no contradiction because of contemplation by the arrangement 'I was miserable as Jiva, but not in my own nature'"—to this he says "Anena". "And thus it is proper"—this is to be supplied. "Why?"—to this he says "Bheda". Because the non-differentiating nature of the adjunct has been stated; this is the purport. Others say: "For the liberated who has attained unity with Brahman, is there remembrance of previous misery or not"—in the view "not", the defect stated as "Magnasya hi" (For the merged one indeed) applies. In the first (remembrance)—does he remember separately or as one with Brahman? The refutation of the first is "Na caikibhootasya"; of the second they explain "Asam" etc. By this, the defect stated as "Mokshe dosho mahan eshah" (This is a great defect in liberation) is displayed. "Objection: What was said—'Upon the destruction of the adjunct, because of the destruction of the reflection'—that is false; for in difference, this would happen between bimba (object) and pratibimba (reflection); but it is not so; but the bimba itself is the pratibimba, because of the recognition 'That is this'. 'One should not look at the rising sun, nor the setting one ever; nor the eclipsed, nor the one in water, nor the one gone to the middle of the sky' (Manu 4.38)—because in the Smriti, the use of the word 'Aditya' (Sun) is seen even for the reflection in water like for the rising one etc. The difference is created by the adjunct like mirror etc. And thus, upon the destruction of the adjunct, only the difference is destroyed; whence is the destruction of the reflection? Similarly for the Jiva too"—raising this doubt, he says "Recognition itself is unestablished" with "Na ca". "We do not see, nor do we recognize; rather we see only their difference due to reverse orientation etc."—this is the meaning. And what was said—"The difference between Jiva and Brahman, Bimba and Pratibimba, is due to adjuncts"—that is not undesirable for us. But only for the opponent. Because of the absence of proof for the destruction of the Jiva's adjunct, being eternal, the difference caused by it also remains in liberation; with this intention he says "Upadhinasha". "We do not see"—continues. Not only is there absence of proof for the destruction of the adjunct, but there is a contradictor to accepting its destruction, he says "Magnasya". Because of the loss of remembrance etc. in the absence of the adjunct. Not only this much; there is proof for the eternity of the adjunct, he says "Yavat". "Let it be then; the cited Smriti sentence is proof for the unity of Bimba and Pratibimba"—to this he says "Atah", because difference is perceived by perception. By "Pratiyamanam api" (Even though being perceived), he says there is no dispute even in the form of speech as in recognition, with "Varistham". "Of the other" (Brahman) the primary meaning is not possible—so even when read with non-figurative (primary) ones, due to the force of a contradictor, it is seen in "By figurative knowledge of Brahman or liberation..." etc. Thus the perception stated as "Shukadinam" has been justified. Now, let there be perception dependent on justification; there is also one independent of it, he says "Drishtah ca". They are liberated ones with all actions ceased. And this is clearly stated in Mokshadharma. Smriti was cited for the difference from the Lord before liberation; he cites Sruti also with "Pratishakham". "Objection: Just as for difference, there are sentences for non-difference also like 'All become one in the Supreme Imperishable'; so how is the decision?"—to this he states the general logic first with "Virodhe tu". By strong contradiction, the weak is barred; this is the purport. "Then what in the present context?"—to this he says "Yuktayah". "Atra"—in the view of difference—this is indicative. And the favor of perception is to be accepted for the strength of difference-sentences. "Then what is the way for 'Ekibhavanti' (become one)?"—to this he says "Atah". In both places, by the doctrine of becoming one, the sentence stating that is taken. Meaning the sentence of unity is regarding the unity of place. And this is a conventional indication (Rudha-lakshana), so the purpose need not be sought—this is the statement of example. Not only is this way obtained by logic, but it is Scriptural too, he says "Uktam ca". "Even in water, due to unity, the example is not accepted"—to this he says "Tatrapi". "There is no increase at all in the ocean, due to non-perception"—to this he says "Asti". Increase in the ocean also—this is the remainder. He states the unestablishment of non-perception with "Dvari". And it is seen at the mouth of rivers—this is the remainder. "Why is it not seen elsewhere?"—to this he says "Mahattvat", due to the vastness of the ocean water. Not only is the difference of water established by inference with the sign of increase; what then? Even by perception, he says "Tah". "Those waters which Vasistha took from Indra's Kamandalu and threw into his own Kamandalu, those very waters he gave to that Indra"—from this statement of Maha-Kurma (Purana), and from seeing difference in water by capable ones like Vasistha. In the non-seeing of difference, how would he give dividing it? "For this reason also the sentence of the difference of the liberated is stronger, being of the nature of prohibition of non-difference"—he says "Naiva". "Kaivalyam"—supremacy. "This too is strong on the side of difference"—he says "Sa". Thought on the strength and weakness of the prior and posterior views is "Vichara". Decision—ascertainment of Jiva-Isha difference. "Many Purusas, O Brahman"—it is established by this etc.—this is the remainder. For non-difference in liberation is not possible for distinct ones; this is the purport. "Then what?"—to this he says "Balavan". "And decision"—this is the connection. Than "Ekibhavanti" etc. which is mere sentence. "Then how is the characteristic of Bhuma stated as 'Where' etc.?"—to this he says "Atah", due to contradiction with the decision with inquiry itself. It is expressive of the existence etc. dependent on the Lord, of another existing thing also. "For this reason also it is so"—he says "Anyatha". If another indeed did not exist, then how would the Lordship of all, Omniscience etc. of the Lord be established by Sruti etc.? "That is said to be Maya-made in Sruti etc."—to this he says "Na ca". He states another contradictor with "Anyatha". If Bhuma were secondless, then how would Sruti speak of difference in "From his knowledge", "And what is his", "He is onefold" (Chandogya 7.26.2)? "That is not the fruit of Bhuma-knowledge, but the fruit of worship of Saguna Vidya"—to this it is said "Tatraiva", in the section of Bhuma itself. "Objection: Those seen by Narada in Svetadvipa as distinct from the Lord are not indeed liberated, being embodied. If embodied ones are also accepted as liberated, there is contradiction with Sruti 'For one who is embodied, there is no cessation of pleasant and unpleasant' (Chandogya 8.12.1) etc."—to this he says "Na ca". "Why not?"—to this he says "Vailakshanyat" (due to distinctness). "What is that distinctness of theirs from bodies like ours?"—to this he says "Abhautikani", meaning non-material (spiritual). "Then of what nature are they?"—to this he says "Nityopadhi". "Because of being mutable, there would be destruction"—to this it is said "Ishvarashaktya". "Whence is this?"—to this he says "Tatha ca". The eternal adjunct itself is the sixteenth digit (Kala). This is what is said: The statement in Sruti regarding non-cessation of misery for the embodied is with the intention of the inert body dependent on Karma. But the bodies seen by Narada in Svetadvipa are made of consciousness; even if inert, they are not dependent on Karma; therefore they are not causes of misery. And thus, there is no contradiction with Sruti in their being liberated even if embodied. "If the liberated are embodied, then how is the statement of absence of body regarding them 'Or living bodiless, pleasant and unpleasant do not touch' (Chandogya 8.12.1)?"—to this he says "Vadanti ca". Upon distinctness from the worldly, "like that" (like bodiless)—here too—this is the remainder. "For this reason also the statement of bodilessness is proper"—he says "Nirukti". Because of the absence of the meaning obtainable by etymology there; this is the meaning. "What is that etymology?"—to this, to avoid the heaviness of performing the derivation, he shows the Sruti itself intent on that with "Tatha hi". "Ashari"—it became withered (shirnam); for this reason the word "Taccharira" came to be; this is the meaning. "How is the meaning obtainable by etymology not in them?"—to this he says "Na hi". "So then, how is the use of the word body 'Their body is born' regarding them?"—to this he says "Samyat". Meaning figurative due to the similarity of having hands, feet, etc. with bodies like ours. "Why this intention of the word 'Asharira'? Why not simply total absence of body?"—to this he says "Prayogat ca". Because of the use of absence of body in these two sentences regarding the liberated in the very bodies seen by Narada etc.; because otherwise it is inexplicable, this meaning is established. Not only by mere possibility, this is also the meaning. "Ityadi" is an adverb. It is connected with "Prayogat". "Let the inhabitants of Svetadvipa seen by Narada be liberated; still there is no contradiction with our perception; because theirs is a secondary liberation other than the attributeless liberation which is the attainment of Svetadvipa. We speak of unity only in the attributeless liberation"—to this he says "Na ca". Because of the prohibition of liberation other than the attainment of Svetadvipa, this alone is liberation; this is the meaning. "Objection: Shishupala etc. are liberated by entering the Lord here itself without going to Svetadvipa; how is this?"—to this he says "Ye tu". They are not liberated then—this is the remainder. "Then when?"—to this he says "Te'pi". They are liberated then—this is the remainder. "Objection: Having said 'Some are liberated here itself' etc., by the statement of going to Svetadvipa only for those of great worthiness 'The great knowers go to the Ocean of Milk', how is this rule?"—to this he says "Yogyatvam". Residence here—this is the remainder. Attainment of Svetadvipa exists for all. But worthiness characterized by great knowledge is intended for residence here; this is the meaning. "Objection: This sentence means 'There is no Saguna liberation without attaining Svetadvipa'; but there is another Nirguna liberation"—to this he says "Yudhishthira". Sayujya is indeed well-known; that alone is Nirguna liberation; "There, is the oneness of the Self with Brahman"—to this he says "Sayujyam ca". Just as the enjoyment of a Graha (spirit) entering another person; so the enjoyment of the liberated entering the Lord is indeed Sayujya, not unity; this is the meaning. "Whence is this? From the power of the word Sayujya and from Scriptural sentence"—he says "Tadukteh ca". In the highest liberation—characterized by Sayujya—entering the Lord—this is the remainder. To exclude the bliss of the Lord—"Bahyan". The division in external things also should be known from other statements. He concludes the meaning stated by "Good deed also is unpleasant" etc. with "Atah". "Just as there is restriction in the abandonment of good deeds, is there in the abandonment of the undesirable also?"—in this inquiry he says "Sa". "Why can these statements not be with the intention of abundance?"—to this he says "Vishesha". "Sankarshana etc., the aggregate Jivas, are indeed liberated; and misery is seen in their forms like Bala, Lakshmana etc.; that itself is the specific proof"—to this he says "Yesham". Not attained Sayujya, not liberated; this is the meaning. Because of the absence of liberation in the absence of that for those fit for Sayujya. "Then what is the way for the statement of their liberation?"—to this he says "Samipya". Is the seed (cause) in the statement of liberation—this is the remainder. "Why are they not liberated?"—to this he says "Atah". Due to seeing misery, due to the existence of Prarabdha karma which is the cause of that, not liberated. "Then when are they liberated?"—to this he says "Tat". Here he states the agreement of Agama with "Taccoktam". He concludes what was said "He exists indeed" etc. with "Atah". "Then is liberation only the cessation of the undesirable?"—to this, by inference and scripture, "And supreme happiness"—he says "Parabrahmatvam". "Liberated state—even though Brahma etc. are devoid of misery—this is for praising attachment to liberation"—(holding) thus there is no contradiction with the exclusiveness of Brahman. Because the rule of compound-ending is not eternal, "Vanmanogocaram" is said. "Mahat"—this is connected with "Sukham". "Greater even than the status of Brahma etc."—thus. Greater than the status of Brahma for Brahma, greater than the status of Shesha for Shesha etc. should be known. Thus the first half is explained as showing the fruit of knowledge. "Why should it not be for describing the nature of Yoga by the stated method?"—to this, intending "The third quarter has connection in the meaning stated by us, otherwise its irrelevance"—he reads it "Atah". To make known that "This is not a reference to a distant cause", "Atah" is said where "Tasmat" should be read. "Since knowledge has great fruit, 'Engage in Yoga'—how is the cause-and-effect relationship?"—to this he explains "Yogaya" with "Jnane". "Objection: In 'Equanimity is called Yoga' (2.48) Yoga is explained; in 'Yoga is skill in actions' (2.50) it is explained again?"—to this, with the idea "This praise of Yoga is being done", he says "Taddhi". That Yoga—this is the remainder.

Thus, having stated the defect in the absence of Buddhi-yoga, He states the merit in its presence. "Iha" (Here), in the midst of actions, one who is "Buddhiyuktah"—endowed with the wisdom of equanimity—"jahati" (abandons) both "Sukrita" and "Dushkrita" (merit and sin) through the means of mental purification and the attainment of Knowledge.

Since this is so, "tasmat" (therefore) "yujyasva"—strive or be ready—for the Yoga of equanimity.

Because such a Yoga of equanimity is the "Kaushalam" (skill or proficiency) of one who has offered his mind to God and is engaged in actions. That actions, which are essentially causes of bondage, lose that nature (non-bindingness) and culminate in Moksha—that is the great skill. (A contrast is implied here): Karma Yoga endowed with equanimity, even though it is of the nature of action (insentient), destroys evil action, and is thus "Maha-kushala" (greatly skillful); whereas you (Arjuna), do not effect the destruction of the evils of your same class (or evil kinsmen)—this contrast is implied here.

Alternatively: When action endowed with equanimity is performed here, becoming "Buddhiyuktah"—meaning endowed with the direct realization of the Supreme Self through mental purification—one abandons both merit and demerit. Therefore, strive for Karma Yoga endowed with equanimity. Because among actions, Karma Yoga endowed with equanimity is "Kaushalam" (skillful/good). The meaning is that it is clever in warding off evil actions.

(Objection): If so, what happens in such a Buddhi? Anticipating this, He says—"Buddhiyuktah", etc. Endowed with Buddhi, one abandons both Sukrita (merit) and Dushkrita (demerit) here itself. The meaning is: Endowed with Buddhi (directed) in Me, in this very birth, he abandons the fruit of merit (heaven, etc.) and the fruit of demerit (hell), as well as the Sukrita and Dushkrita which are the means to them. He does not calculate, "I am performing merit for excellent results" or "Sin was committed out of delusion, the experience of its result will be mine." Instead, he acts with the attitude, "As the Lord inspires, so I do." Thereby, that (action) becomes a means to Bhakti.

"Since I, becoming pleased by such Buddhi, bestow Bhakti, therefore, 'Yogaya'—for Yoga (here 'mama'/'My' is implied)—'Yujyasva', meaning make an effort for My Yoga." (Objection): Since Yoga is also accomplished by effort, it is merely Action (Karma); falling within the previously mentioned category, what is the use of Yoga? To this He says—"Yogah", etc. "Karmasu kaushalam"—the cleverness in actions is Yoga. The cleverness lies in it being a means to stabilize the mind for seeing Me, due to being devoted to Me. Or, (Yoga) refers to the fruits of direct eligibility for Bhakti. Performing action by My command is Yoga. This indeed is the cleverness in actions: that even having performed them, one enters into the means of Bhakti; such Yoga is supreme.

Now, due to the absence of eligibility for that (direct Bhakti), He instructs in this manner. Otherwise, the word "Karmasu" (in actions) would be useless.

Buddhiyuktah—one endowed with the wisdom regarding equanimity in action—is "Buddhiyuktah". He "jahati"—abandons entirely—"iha"—in this world—both "sukrita-dushkrite"—merit and sin—

through the means of mental purification and the attainment of knowledge. "Yatah" (Since this is so), "tasmat" (therefore), "yujyasva"—strive—for the Yoga of the wisdom of equanimity.

"For Yoga is indeed skill in actions"—

for one engaged in actions known as Svadharma (one's own duty), the evenness of mind regarding success and failure, by virtue of the mind being offered to God, is that "kaushalam"—skill or proficiency.

That indeed is skill, that actions, which are by nature binding, turn away from that nature through the wisdom of equanimity.

Therefore, become endowed with the wisdom of equanimity.

Only one endowed with this Buddhi-yoga becomes free from dualities; this He states with "Buddhiyuktah", etc. He abandons "ubhe"—both merit and sin—which are comparable to golden and iron shackles, "ihaiva"—here itself.

Therefore, be "yukta"—disciplined/prepared—for "Yoga", which is of the described nature. "For Yoga is skill in actions"—meaning, it is the means to the state of being free from bondage.

This is the manifestation of (its) quality.

बुद्धियुक्तः endowed with wisdom? जहाति casts off? इह in this life? उभे both? सुकृतदुष्कृते good and evil deeds? तस्मात् therefore? योगाय to Yoga? युज्यस्व devote thyself? योगः Yoga? कर्मसु in actions? कौशलम् skill.Commentary Work performed with motive towards fruits only can bind a man. It will bring the fruits and the performer of the action will have to take birth again in this mortal world to enjoy them. If work is performed with evennes of mind (the Yoga of wisdom? i.e.? united to pure Buddhi? intelligence or reason) with the mind resting in the Lord? it will not bind him it will not bring any fruit it is no work at all. Actions which are of a binding nature lose that nature when performed with eanimity of mind? or poised reason. The Yogi of poised reason attributes all actions to the Divine Actor within (Isvara or God).

Listen to the result that one possessed of the wisdom of eanimity attains by performing one's own duties: Buddhi-yuktah, possessed of wisdom, possessed of the wisdom of eanimity; since one jahati, rejects; iha, here, in this world; ubhe, both; sukrta-duskrte, virtue and vice (righteousness and unrighteousness), through the purification of the mind and acisition of Knowledge; tasmat, therefore; yujyasva, devote yourself; yogaya, to (Karma-) yoga, the wisdom of eanimity. For Yoga is kausalam, skilfulness; karmasu, in action. Skilfulness means the attitude of the skilful, the wisdom of eanimity with regard to one's success and failure while engaged in actions (karma) called one's own duties (sva-dharma) with the mind dedicated to God.
That indeed is skilfulness which, through eanimity, makes actions that by their very nature bind give up their nature! Therefore, be you devoted to the wisdom of eanimity.

He, who is established in evenness of mind in the performance of actions, relinishes good and evil Karmas which have accumulated from time immemorial causing bondage endlessly. Therefore acire this aforesaid evenness of mind (Buddhi Yoga). Yoga is skill in action. That is, this evenness of mind when one is engaged in action, is possible through great skill, i.e., ability.