Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 18

व्याख्या--'नैव तस्य कृतेनार्थः'--प्रत्येक मनुष्यकी कुछ-न-कुछ करनेकी प्रवृत्ति होती है। जबतक यह करनेकी प्रवृत्ति किसी सांसारिक वस्तुकी प्राप्तिके लिये होती है, तबतक उसका अपने लिये 'करना' शेष रहता ही है। अपने लियेकुछ-न-कुछ पानेकी इच्छासे ही मनुष्य बँधता है। उस इच्छाकी निवृत्तिके लिये कर्तव्य-कर्म करनेकी आवश्यकता है।कर्म दो प्रकारसे किये जाते हैं। कामना-पूर्तिके लिये और कामना-निवृत्तिके लिये। साधारण मनुष्य तो कामना-पूर्तिके लिये कर्म करते हैं, पर कर्मयोगी कामना-निवृत्तिके लिये कर्म करता है। इसलिये कर्मयोगसे सिद्ध महापुरुषमें कोई भी कामना न रहनेके कारण उसका किसी भी कर्तव्यसे किञ्चिन्मात्र भी सम्बन्ध नहीं रहता। उसके द्वारा निःस्वार्थभावसे समस्त सृष्टिके हितके लिये स्वतः कर्तव्य-कर्म होते हैं।कर्मयोगसे सिद्ध महापुरुषका कर्मोंसे अपने लिये (व्यक्तिगत सुख-आरामके लिये) कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं रहता। इस महापुरुषका यह अनुभव होता है कि पदार्थ, शरीर, इन्द्रियाँ, अन्तःकरण आदि केवल संसारके हैं और संसारसे मिले हैं व्यक्तिगत नहीं हैं। अतः इनके द्वारा केवल संसारके लिये ही कर्म करना है, अपने लिये नहीं। कारण यह है कि संसारकी सहायताके बिना कोई भी कर्म नहीं किया जा सकता। इसके अलावा मिली हुई कर्म-सामग्रीका सम्बन्ध भी समष्टि संसारके साथ ही है, अपने साथ नहीं। इसलिये अपना कुछ नहीं है। व्यष्टिके लिये समष्टि हो ही नहीं सकती। मनुष्यकी यही गलती होती है कि वह अपने लिये समष्टिका उपयोग करना चाहता है इसीसे उसे अशान्ति होती है। अगर वह शरीर, इन्द्रियाँ, मन, बुद्धि, पदार्थ आदिका समष्टिके लिये उपयोग करे तो उसे महान् शान्ति प्राप्त हो सकती है। कर्मयोगसे सिद्ध महापुरुषमें यही विशेषता रहती है कि उसके कहलानेवाले शरीर, इन्द्रियाँ, मन, बुद्धि, पदार्थ आदिका उपयोग मात्र संसारके लिये ही होता है। अतः उसका शरीरादिकी क्रियाओंसे अपना कोई प्रयोजन नहीं रहता। प्रयोजन न रहनेपर भी उस महापुरुषसे स्वाभाविक ही लोगोंके लिये आदर्शरूप उत्तम कर्म होते हैं। जिसका कर्म करनेसे प्रयोजन रहता है उससे आदर्श कर्म नहीं--होते यह सिद्धान्त है।
'नाकृतेनेह कश्चन'--जो मनुष्य शरीर, इन्द्रियाँ, मन, बुद्धि आदिसे अपना सम्बन्ध मानता है और आलस्य, प्रमाद आदिमें रुचि रखता है, वह कर्मोंको नहीं करना चाहता; क्योंकि उसका प्रयोजन प्रमाद, आलस्य, आराम आदिसे उत्पन्न तामस-सुख रहता है (गीता 18।39)। परन्तु यह महापुरुष, जो सात्त्विक सुखसे भी ऊँचा उठ चुका है, तामस सुखमें प्रवृत्त हो ही कैसे सकता है? क्योंकि इसका शरीरादिसे किञ्चिन्मात्र भी सम्बन्ध नहीं रहता, फिर आलस्य-आराम आदिमें रुचि रहनेका तो प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता।'मार्मिक बात'प्रायः साधक कर्मोंके न करनेको ही महत्त्व देते हैं। वे कर्मोंसे उपरत होकर समाधिमें स्थित होना चाहते हैं, जिससे कोई भी चिन्तन बाकी न रहे। यह बात श्रेष्ठ और लाभप्रद तो, है पर सिद्धान्त नहीं है। यद्यपि प्रवृत्ति-(करना-) की अपेक्षा निवृत्ति (न करना) श्रेष्ठ है, तथापि यह तत्त्व नहीं है।प्रवृत्ति (करना) और निवृत्ति (न करना)--दोनों ही प्रकृतिके राज्यमें हैं। निर्विकल्प समाधितक सब प्रकृतिका राज्य है, क्योंकि निर्विकल्प समाधिसे भी व्युत्थान होता है। क्रियामात्र प्रकृतिमें ही होती है--'प्रकर्षेण करणं (भावे ल्युट्) इति प्रकृतिः' और क्रिया हुए बिना व्युत्थानका होना सम्भव ही नहीं। इसलिये चलने, बोलने, देखने, सुनने आदिकी तरह सोना, बैठना खड़ा होना मौन होना मूर्च्छित होना और समाधिस्थ होना भी क्रिया है (टिप्पणी प0 142)। वास्तविक तत्त्व(चेतन स्वरूप) में प्रवृत्ति और निवृत्ति दोनों ही नहीं हैं। वह प्रवृत्ति और निवृत्ति दोनोंका निर्लिप्त प्रकाशक है।शरीरसे तादात्म्य होनेपर ही (शरीरको लेकर) करना और न करना ये दो विभाग (द्वन्द्व) होते हैं। वास्तवमें करना और न करना दोनोंकी एक ही जाति है। शरीरसे सम्बन्ध रखकर न करना भी वास्तवमें करना ही है। जैसे 'गच्छति' (जाता है) क्रिया है ऐसे ही 'तिष्ठति' (खड़ा है) भी क्रिया ही है। यद्यपि स्थूल दृष्टिसे 'गच्छति' में क्रिया स्पष्ट दिखायी देती है और 'तिष्ठति' में क्रिया नहीं दिखायी देती है, तथापि सूक्ष्म दृष्टिसे देखा जाय तो जिस शरीरमें 'जाने' की क्रिया थी, उसीमें अब 'खड़े रहने' की क्रिया है। इसी प्रकार किसी कामको करना और न 'करना' इन दोनोंमें ही क्रिया है। अतः जिस प्रकार क्रियाओंका स्थूलरूपसे दिखायी देना (प्रवृत्ति) प्रकृतिमें ही है, उसी प्रकार स्थूल दृष्टिसे क्रियाओंका दिखायी न देना (निवृत्ति) भी प्रकृतिमें ही है। जिसका प्रकृति एवं उसके कार्यसे भौतिक तथा आध्यात्मिक और लौकिक तथा पारलौकिक कोई प्रयोजन नहीं रहता, उस महापुरुषका करने एवं न करनेसे कोई स्वार्थ नहीं रहता।जडताके साथ सम्बन्ध रहनेपर ही करने और न करनेका प्रश्न होता है; क्योंकि जडताके सम्बन्धके बिना कोई क्रिया होती ही नहीं। इस महापुरुषका जडतासे सर्वथा सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद हो जाता है और प्रवृत्ति एवं निवृत्ति--दोनोंसे अतीत सहज-निवृत्त-तत्त्वमें अपनी स्वाभाविक स्थितिका अनुभव हो जाता है। अतः साधकको जडता-(शरीरमें अहंता और ममता) से सम्बन्धविच्छेद करनेकी ही आवश्यकता है। तत्त्व तो सदा ज्यों-का-त्यों विद्यमान है ही।'न चास्य सर्वभूतेषु कश्चिदर्थव्यपाश्रयः' शरीर तथा संसारसे किञ्चिन्मात्र भी स्वार्थका सम्बन्ध न रहनेके कारण उस महापुरुषकी समस्त क्रियाएँ स्वतः दूसरोंके हितके लिये होती हैं। जैसे शरीरके सभी अङ्ग स्वतः शरीरके हितमें लगे रहते हैं, ऐसे ही उस महापुरुषका अपना कहलानेवाला शरीर (जो संसारका एक छोटा-सा अङ्ग है) स्वतः संसारके हितमें लगा रहता है। उसका भाव और उसकी सम्पूर्ण चेष्टाएँ संसारके हितके लिये ही होती हैं। जैसे अपने हाथोंसे अपना ही मुख धोनेपर अपनेमें स्वार्थ, प्रत्युपकार अथवा अभिमानका भाव नहीं आता ऐसे ही अपने कहलानेवाले शरीरके द्वारा संसारका हित होनेपर उस महापुरुषमें किञ्चित् भी स्वार्थ प्रत्युपकार अथवा अभिमानका भाव नहीं आता।
पूर्वश्लोकमें भगवान्ने सिद्ध महापुरुषके लिये कहा कि उसके लिये कोई कर्तव्य नहीं है--'तस्य कार्यं न विद्यते।' उसका हेतु बताते हुए भगवान्ने इस श्लोकमें उस महापुरुषके लिये तीन बातें कही हैं--(1) कर्म करनेसे उसका कोई प्रयोजन नहीं रहता, (2) कर्म न करनेसे भी उसका कोई प्रयोजन नहीं रहता और (3) किसी भी प्राणी और पदार्थसे उसका किञ्चिन्मात्र भी स्वार्थका सम्बन्ध नहीं रहता अर्थात् कुछ पानेसे भी उसका कोई प्रयोजन नहीं रहता।वस्तुतः स्वरूपमें करने अथवा न करनेका कोई प्रयोजन नहीं है और किसी व्यक्ति तथा वस्तुके साथ कोई सम्बन्ध भी नहीं है। कारण कि शुद्ध स्वरूपके द्वारा कोई क्रिया होती ही नहीं। जो भी क्रिया होती है, वह प्रकृति और प्रकृतिजन्य पदार्थोंके सम्बन्धसे ही होती है। इसलिये अपने लिये कुछ करनेका विधान ही नहीं है।जबतक मनुष्यमें करनेका राग, पानेकी इच्छा, जीनेकी आशा और मरनेका भय रहता है, तबतक उसपर कर्तव्यका दायित्व रहता है। परन्तु जिसमें किसी भी क्रियाको करने अथवा न करनेका कोई राग नहीं है, संसारकी किसी भी वस्तु आदिको प्राप्त करनेकी इच्छा नहीं है, जीवित रहनेकी कोई आशा नहीं है और मृत्युसे कोई भय नहीं है, उसे कर्तव्य करना नहीं पड़ता, प्रत्युत उससे स्वतः कर्तव्य-कर्म होते रहते हैं।जहाँ अकर्तव्य होनेकी सम्भावना हो, वहीं कर्तव्य पालनकी प्रेरणा रहती है।'विशेष बात'गीतामें भगवान्की ऐसी शैली रही है कि वे भिन्नभिन्न साधनोंसे परमात्माकी ओर चलनेवाले साधकोंके भिन्न-भिन्न लक्षणोंके अनुसार ही परमात्माको प्राप्त सिद्ध महापुरुषोंके लक्षणोंका वर्णन करते हैं। यहाँ सत्रहवें-अठारहवें श्लोकोंमें भी इसी शैलीका प्रयोग किया गया है।
जो साधन जहाँसे प्रारम्भ होता है, अन्तमें वहीं उसकी समाप्ति होती है। गीतामें कर्मयोगका प्रकरण यद्यपि दूसरे अध्यायके उन्तालीसवें श्लोकसे प्रारम्भ होता है, तथापि कर्मयोगके मूल साधनका विवेचन दूसरे अध्यायके सैंतालीसवें श्लोकमें किया गया है। उस श्लोक (2। 47) के चार चरणोंमें बताया गया है--
(1) कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते (तेरा कर्म करनेमें ही अधिकार है)
(2) मा फलेषु कदाचन (कर्मफलोंमें तेरा कभी भी अधिकार नहीं है)।
(3) मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूः (तू कर्मफलका हेतु मत बन)।
(4) मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि (तेरी कर्म न करनेमें आसक्ति न हो)।
प्रस्तुत श्लोक (3। 18) में ठीक उपर्युक्त साधनाकी सिद्धिकी बात है। वहाँ (2। 47) में दूसरे और तीसरे चरणमें साधकके लिये जो बात कही गयी है, वह प्रस्तुत श्लोकके उत्तरार्धमें सिद्ध महापुरुषके लिये कही गयी है कि उसका किसी प्राणी और पदार्थसे कोई स्वार्थका सम्बन्ध नहीं रहता। वहाँ पहले और चौथे चरणमें साधकके लिये जो बात कही गयी है, वह प्रस्तुत श्लोकके पूर्वार्धमें सिद्ध महापुरुषके लिये कही गयी है कि उसका कर्म करने अथवा न करने--दोनोंसे ही कोई प्रयोजन नहीं रहता। इस प्रकार सत्रहवें-अठारहवें श्लोकोंमें 'कर्मयोग' से सिद्ध हुए महापुरुषके लक्षणोंका ही वर्णन किया गया है।कर्मयोगके साधनकी दृष्टिसे वास्तवमें अठारहवाँ श्लोक पहले तथा सत्रहवाँ श्लोक बादमें आना चाहिये। कारण कि जब कर्मयोगसे सिद्ध हुए महापुरुषका कर्म करने अथवा न करनेसे कोई प्रयोजन नहीं रहता तथा उसका किसी भी प्राणी-पदार्थसे किञ्चिन्मात्र भी स्वार्थका सम्बन्ध नहीं रहता। तब उसकी रति, तृप्ति और संतुष्टि अपने-आपमें ही हो जाती है। परन्तु सोलहवें श्लोकमें भगवान्ने 'मोघं पार्थ स जीवति' पदोंसे कर्तव्य-पालन न करनेवाले मनुष्यके जीनेको निरर्थक बतलाया था; अतः सत्रहवें श्लोकमें 'यः तु' पद देकर यह बतलाते हैं कि यदि सिद्ध महापुरुष कर्तव्य-कर्म नहीं करता तो उसका जीना निरर्थक नहीं है, प्रत्युत महान् सार्थक है। कारण कि उसने मनुष्यजन्मके उद्देश्यको पूरा कर लिया है। अतः उसके लिये अब कुछ भी करना शेष नहीं रहा।जिस स्थितिमें कोई भी कर्तव्य शेष नहीं रहता उस स्थितिको साधारण-से-साधारण मनुष्य भी प्रत्येक अवस्थामें तत्परता एवं लगनपूर्वक, निष्कामभावसे कर्तव्यकर्म करनेपर प्राप्त कर सकता है; क्योंकि उसकी प्राप्तिमें सभी स्वतन्त्र और अधिकारी हैं। कर्तव्यका सम्बन्ध प्रत्येक परिस्थितिसे जुड़ा हुआ है। इसलिये प्रत्येकपरिस्थितिमें कर्तव्य निहित रहता है। केवल सुखलोलुपतासे ही मनुष्य कर्तव्यको भूलता है। यदि वह निःस्वार्थ-भावसे दूसरोंकी सेवा करके अपनी सुखलोलुपता मिटा डाले, तो जीवनके सभी दुःखोंसे छुटकारा पाकर परम शान्तिको प्राप्ति हो सकता है। इस परम शान्तिकी प्राप्तिमें सबका समान अधिकार है। संसारके सर्वोपरि पदार्थ, पद आदि सबको समानरूपसे मिलने सम्भव नहीं हैं; किन्तु परम शान्ति सबको समानरूपसेही मिलती है।
सम्बन्ध--पीछेके दो श्लोकोंमें वर्णित महापुरुषकी स्थितिको प्राप्त करनेके लिये साधकको क्या करना चाहिये--इसपर भगवान् आगेके श्लोकमें साधन बताते हैं।

क्योंकि उस परमात्मामें प्रीतिवाले पुरुषका इस लोकमें कर्म करनेसे कोई प्रयोजन ही नहीं रहता है। तो फिर कर्म न करनेसे उसको प्रत्यवायरूप अनर्थकी प्राप्ति होती होगी ( इसपर कहते हैं ) उसके न करनेसे भी उसे इस लोकमें कोई प्रत्यवायप्राप्तिरूप या आत्महानिरूप अनर्थकी प्राप्ति नहीं होती तथा ब्रह्मासे लेकर स्थावरतक सब प्राणियोंमें उसका कुछ भी अर्थव्यपाश्रय नहीं होता। किसी फलके लिये ( किसी प्राणिविशेषका ) जो क्रियासाध्य आश्रय है उसका नाम अर्थव्यपाश्रय है सो इस आत्मज्ञानीको किसी प्राणिविशेषका सहारा लेकर कोई प्रयोजन सिद्ध नहीं करना है जिससे कि उसे तदर्थक किसी क्रियाका आरम्भ करना पड़े। परन्तु तू इस सब ओरसे परिपूर्ण जलाशयस्थानीय यथार्थ ज्ञानमें स्थित नहीं है।

With the word "kiñca" (moreover), he states that for this reason also, there is no duty whatsoever for the knower of the Self. Anticipating the doubt that either prosperity (abhyudaya) or liberation (niḥśreyasa) might be the purpose achieved by the Self-knower through performed good deeds, he says "Naiva" (Not at all). Anticipating the doubt that action might be for the removal of sin (pratyavāya) or for preventing the fall from one's true nature, he says "Na" (No), etc. Anticipating the doubt that by resorting to some specific being among all beings from Brahma down to immobile objects, some goal might be achievable for the wise man, and for that purpose action should be performed by him, he says "Na ca" (And not).

He takes the first quarter [of the verse] "Naiva" (Not at all). He explains it as "Tasya" (For him). The Self-knower has no desire for prosperity like heaven, and liberation is already attained, so performed action is not purposeful—this is the meaning.

Raising the doubt, "If action is not done by the Self-knower, then by that non-performance, evil will befall him; therefore, to refute that, action is his duty," he uses "Tarhi" (Then). He answers with the second quarter [of the verse] "Na" etc. Therefore, action performed for the removal of that [evil] is not purposeful—this is the completion.

He divides the second part [of the verse] "Na cāsya". The connection is "Vyapāśrayaṇa" means dependence/resort is "Na" (not). Having stated the word-meaning, he states the sentence-meaning "Kaṃcit" (Any). Thinking that even a specific being resorted to is a cause for generating a purpose only through action, he says "Yena" (By which).

Anticipating Arjuna's opinion, "Then, by me also, having resorted to the Truth as described, action should indeed be abandoned," he says "Na tvam" (But not you).

He explains the fourth quarter [contextually the first part] with "Naiva" (Not at all). For him, the one delighting in the Self, there is absolutely no purpose with action performed—whether for prosperity, for knowledge, or for liberation. Because heaven is known to be trivial; because knowledge has already arisen; and because the Shruti "The uncreated is not attained by the created/action" establishes that liberation is not to be effected by action.

"Let there be, then, the result called 'sin' (pratyavāya) due to non-performance"—to this he says "Na" (No). In this world, there is no object/result whatsoever in the form of incurring sin or loss of oneself, because the one delighting in the Self has no qualification for performing obligatory duties (Nitya karma). And because at that time, he is not engaged in prohibited actions which are positive entities that generate sin.

Since there is nothing whatsoever to be achieved by him from anyone/anything, he says "Na ca" (And not). For him, among all beings from Brahma down to unmoving objects, there is no "Artha" (object)—meaning one to be resorted to or served—by which [or for whom] action for that purpose would need to be performed.

In this verse, due to the absence of words like "one who has ascended the stage (bhūmikā)", it should be understood that the display of the [Yoga] stages described in Vasistha [Ramayana] done by some [commentators] is irrelevant.

Having replied to someone [who thinks] "I must be spoken to/instructed at the time of action," [the truth is] there is no purpose in the performance of that [action] which is greater or supreme [reading 'ptamo' as 'uttamo' or 'saptamo'] than delight in the Self.

Nor is there any fault in the non-performance of Sandhya etc. Nor, leaving this aside, is there any support for a purpose among all beings.

The object/purpose by which, through seeing etc., it comes to be—that is "Artha-vyapāśraya" (dependence on an object). Although by knowledge alone sin does not occur, that is common to Arjuna as well; therefore, that does not become useful for the instruction of action to him.

And that [non-performance/inaction] becomes an indicator of a slightly commenced evil (anartha). If it is great, [it is] like the killing of Vritra etc.

He states this very point with "naiva" (not at all). For him, the one delighting in the Self, there is no "artha"—meaning purpose—with action performed ("kṛtena karmaṇā"), due to the absence of desire for heaven and the like. And because liberation is not achievable by action, as per the Shruti: "The Uncreated is not [attained] by the created." The meaning of the Shruti is that uncreated liberation does not exist (is not produced) by created action.

With "akṛtena"—meaning with opposed (forbidden) action—he has no "artha"—meaning hell etc. Here, the words "kṛta" (done) and "akṛta" (not done) denote merit and sin (punya and papa), just as the words "mitra" (friend) and "amitra" (enemy/non-friend) denote mutually opposed meanings.

However, as for those who explain "akṛtena" as a locative absolute in the sense of a state (non-performance)—interpreting it to mean that for the wise man, there is no object in the form of blameworthiness or the incurring of sin (pratyavāya) due to the non-performance of obligatory duties—even in their view, since the production of a positive entity (sin) from a non-entity (absence) is not accepted, one must admit that sin arises only from whatever other non-prescribed action is performed at the time of the obligatory duty. Thus, it leads to the situation of "morning at the toll-station" (a proverb implying falling back into the same difficulty one tried to avoid).

He states the reasoning here with "na ca" (and not). "Ca" implies the reason. Because for the one delighting in the Self, among all beings—sentient and insentient, high, middle, or low—there is no "arthavyapāśrayaḥ," meaning no connection with any purpose consisting of the enjoyment of happiness. The meaning is that precisely because he delights in the Self and is desireless, the wise man has no connection with the fruits of merit and sin.

"Ata eva" (Therefore indeed), for him, for the vision of the Self, there is no "artha"—no purpose whatsoever—with "kṛtena," i.e., with the means to that (action). Nor is there any "anartha" (evil/loss) with "akṛtena"—with the non-performance of the means to Self-vision—because his vision of the Self is not dependent on means.

For him, who is naturally turned away from all non-sentient objects distinct from the Self, among all specific modifications of Nature (Prakriti)—such as the elements like Akasha and their effects—there is no "vyapāśrayaḥ" (dependence/resort) either as a goal or as a means. [There is no need for him] to undertake means to turn away from them, for he is indeed liberated.

Since non-engagement in means belongs only to one whose Self-vision is not dependent on means; and since, even for one engaged in means (Sadhana), Karma Yoga is superior for the accomplishment of Self-vision—because it is easy to perform, free from negligence, includes the contemplation of the true nature of the Self, and because even for the Jnana Yogi, the maintenance of the body requires the performance of action.

He states the reason for that with "naiva tasya" (not indeed for him). With action performed, he has absolutely no "artha," meaning merit (Punya). Nor is there any "pratyavāya" (sin/adverse consequence) whatsoever with action not performed. Because, being free from egoism, he has transcended injunctions and prohibitions.

Nevertheless, anticipating the doubt—"Since the Shruti states 'Therefore it is not dear to them (the gods) that men should know this,' obstacles caused by gods are possible regarding liberation; therefore, to remove them, gods should be served through actions"—He says: Among "sarvabhūteṣu"—all beings from Brahma down to immobile objects—there is no "arthavyapāśrayaḥ." "Vyapāśraya" means simply support or refuge. The meaning is that regarding "artha"—i.e., liberation—he has no support that needs to be sought.

Because the absence of obstacles is stated by the Shruti itself. And so the Shruti (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10): "Tasya ha na devāśca nābhūtyā īśate ātmā hyeṣāṃ sa bhavati" (And the gods have no power to prevent his becoming [Brahman], for he becomes their Self). Here the indeclinable "ha na" is in the sense of "api" (even/also). The meaning of the Shruti is that even the gods are not capable ("na īśate") of the "abhūti"—i.e., the obstruction of the state of Brahman—of that knower of the Truth of Self.

Obstacles caused by gods exist only before the rise of right knowledge. Because the Shruti "that men should know this Brahman is not dear to these gods" mentions that the knowledge of Brahman itself is disliked, implying that they are creators of obstacles only there (at the stage of acquiring knowledge).

Interpreting the word "artha" here as referring to "purpose" (prayojana), he avoids redundancy with the phrase "duty does not exist" (from verse 17) by explaining [in the Bhashya]: "Na kiñcit prayojanam" (No purpose whatsoever). The meaning is that since there is no purpose, there is no duty.

Regarding "Na akṛtena" (Not by non-performance), the intention is not to negate a [positive] object, but rather to state that there is no sin (pratyavāya) in non-performance; with this intention, he says "Na kaścid anartha" (No evil/loss whatsoever). "Artha" and "anartha" here refer to "Self-vision" and "its absence" respectively; among them, since the former is already established, it is not to be accomplished (sādhya), and since the latter is completely removed, it is not to be removed (nivartanīya)—with this intention, he says "because Self-vision is not dependent on means."

By "Na cāsya" (And not for him) etc., it is stated that there is no need [for support] even for the removal of obstacles; with this intention, he says "svata eva" (spontaneously/by nature) etc. The word "asya" (of this one) refers to the type of person described by "delighting in the Self" etc.; with this intention, he explains it as "of one turned away from all non-sentient objects."

Interpreting the word "sarva" (all) here without restriction to include all material objects of enjoyment along with their specific variations, he says [in the Bhashya] from "prakṛti" (nature) up to "sakāryeṣu" (along with effects). By the word "pariṇāma" (modification/result), it is shown that the word "bhūta" in the text refers to things associated with the verb "to become/originate."

Regarding "arthavyapāśrayaḥ"—he clarifies that the word "artha" is dominant in the sense of the abstract noun (state of being a purpose), explaining it as "dependence as a purpose." "Vyapāśraya" means acceptance. Or, the intention is: "Artha" (purpose) itself is the "vyapāśraya" (what is to be accepted). By this, the interpretation of others—that it means "resort/dependence for the sake of a purpose"—is refuted.

Regarding "Na cāsya" etc., either with the intention of stating the reason, or with the intention of concluding the meaning of both verses that "he indeed is liberated who is independent of means," it is stated [in the Bhashya]: "Sa hi mukta eva" (For he is indeed liberated).

सामान्य मनुष्य कर्म में दो कारणों से प्रवृत्त होता है (क) कर्म करने से (कृत) कुछ लाभ की आशा और (ख) कर्म न करने से (अकृत) किसी हानि का भय। परन्तु जिसने अपने परम पूर्ण आत्मस्वरूप को साक्षात् कर लिया ऐसे तृप्त और सन्तुष्ट पुरुष को कर्म करने अथवा न करने से कोई प्रयोजन नहीं रह जाता क्योंकि उसे न अधिक लाभ की आशा होती है और न हानि का भय। आत्मानुभूति में स्थित वह पुरुष आनन्द के लिये किसी भी वस्तु या व्यक्ति पर आश्रित नहीं होता। परमार्थ दृष्टि से बाह्य विषय रूप जगत् आत्मस्वरूप से भिन्न नहीं है। वास्तव में आत्मा ही अविद्या वृत्ति से जगत् के रूप में प्रतीत होता है।चूँकि तुमने समुद्र के समान पूर्णत्व प्राप्त नहीं किया है इसलिए

Regarding the text starting with "Yaśca" and ending with "Pūruṣa" (verse 19).

For one who delights in the Self, however, while performing action merely as the activity of the senses, there is equanimity in acting and not acting.

Therefore, he does not exercise punishment or favor towards beings expecting any personal benefit, but [acts] solely with the idea "this is to be done."

Therefore, remaining unattached, one should perform the duty to be done.

[Objection]: If this statement regarding the absence of duty applies not to every Knower (Jnani) but only to one established in Asamprajnata Samadhi [as stated in verse 17], then the subsequent sentence "Naiva tasya kṛtenārthaḥ" (He has no purpose with action performed) does not connect appropriately. Because for one in Asamprajnata Samadhi, the very means/instrument of action is absent, so stating the absence of a purpose for it is illogical; whereas for a [general] Knower, action is possible, so negating its purpose would be appropriate? [Reply]: Not so.

If one argues "Then even extreme concentration of mind (Samadhi) is not a duty?", why was the reply "He has no duty" (3.17) given to that objection? Why was it not said: "Having replied to someone 'I must be awakened by you at the time of action,' the concentrated one, awakened by him through means described in Yoga shastra, performs action"? To refute this doubt, this verse is spoken in this way—with this intention, he explains "Tasya" etc.

The connection is: For him, the one established in Asamprajnata Samadhi, there is no purpose. "Of the one awakened having spoken [to someone]" is the completion of the thought. "In that case, there would be a contradiction with the statement that 'For him alone there is great happiness' etc.?" To this, it is said "Atma" etc.

Or equal ("Sama") to Atmarati (delight in Self). The negation of "equal" implies the maxim of kaimutya (what to speak of greater). Action that has a fruit equal or greater (vyaya?) is not performed. [Objection]: Here, since the word "kaścana" (any) requires a noun to qualify, and due to proximity, it connects with "artha" (purpose/gain). In that case, this is improper. For there is no "attainment of purpose" in the non-performance of action which could be logically negated. [Reply]: Even though "artha" is proximate, due to the strength of "yogyatā" (semantic compatibility), the word "doṣaḥ" (defect/sin) is supplied by ellipsis. Still, since there is no incurring of sin (pratyavāya) for not performing [optional acts like] Ashvamedha, the negation would be irrelevant there too. Therefore, regarding "na akṛtena" (not by non-performance), he explains "Na ceti".

[Purpose]: "Let there be no rising [from Samadhi] for the sake of performing sacrifices etc., but since sin arises from the non-performance of obligatory (nitya) and occasional (naimittika) duties, one might rise for that?"—This is to refute such a doubt. "Sandhya" refers to the duty to be performed at that time. [Objection]: "Let there be no purpose in performing minor sacrifices, and let there be sin in not performing Sandhya etc.; still, regarding the performance or non-performance of worship of Gurus and Deities, there would indeed be Merit (Artha) and Sin (Pratyavaya). Therefore, when their proximity/time arrives, rising is indeed necessary?" To refute this doubt, "Na cāsya" (And not for him) is stated. But that [negation] would be improper due to the aforementioned contradiction. Therefore, he explains "Na caitaditi".

"Etad"—meaning having abandoned this Asamprajnata Samadhi—"of the one who has risen" is the completion. By "apahāya" (having abandoned), he negates the "superiority" even of worshipping Gurus etc., because only superiority would be useful [as a reason] for abandoning the former (Samadhi). "Sarva bhuteṣu"—means in Gurus etc. [Objection]: "Artha-vyapāśraya" means "attainment of purpose/object"; in that case, the grammar should be "sarvabhūtebhyaḥ" (from all beings - Ablative case), [but the text has "sarvabhūteṣu" - Locative]? [Reply]: To this, he says "Artha" etc. By this, it is stated that this is a Vyadhikaraṇa Bahuvrīhi compound: The "Vyapāśraya" (attainment) of "Artha" (object) happens "Yena" (by which) activity like seeing etc.—[that activity is implied].

And thus, since Gurus etc. are the objects (viṣaya) of seeing etc., the Locative case (in all beings) is justified. By this, "Anartha-vyapāśraya" (attainment of evil) is also implied/indicated. [Objection]: Be that as it may, why go through this effort? Why can this not apply to the "Knower in general" (Jñāni-mātra)? For purely by knowledge, there is an absence of sin, so this meaning is possible there too? And the restrictions (like 'eva') could be interpreted figuratively? [Reply]: To this, he says "Jñāna" etc. That implies "mere knowledge." The word "iti" implies the reason. To say there is absence of duty [for a general knower] is on the contrary contradictory—this is the heart of the matter.

"Sin does not occur"—this was stated accepting [a certain perspective/concession]. In reality, it does exist even for a [general] Knower. By performing prohibited actions etc., unintended results (aniṣṭa) are obtained; he states this with "Īṣaditi" (Slightly). And when indicated, only then is there distress of mind. This is an indicator (upalakṣaṇa). One should understand "decrease of bliss in Liberation" also [as a consequence]. (Again: Srinivasa Tirtha says "decrease of bliss in Liberation"; Krishnacharya's note says "it is an indicator"). Similarly, in performing prescribed duties, there is no "increase in bliss" either [for the Samadhi-situated one].

Objection: Surely even for the Knower of the Self, there should be action for the sake of prosperity (Abhyudaya), for the sake of the Highest Good (Nishreyasa/Liberation), or for the avoidance of sin (Pratyavaya)? To this, He says— For that one rejoicing in the Self, there is no purpose—neither characterized by prosperity nor by the Highest Good—served by action performed. Because he has no desire for prosperity like heaven etc., and because the Highest Good cannot be accomplished by action.

And the Shruti says: 'Having examined the worlds acquired by action, a Brahmana should arrive at dispassion; the Uncreated (Eternal Liberation) is not [attained] by the created (action).' The meaning is that the Uncreated, which is Eternal Liberation, does not exist through action performed. The exclusion of even a result achievable by knowledge is indicated by the emphatic particle 'eva'. For the Highest Good, which is the very nature of the Self, is eternally attained, and its non-attainment is merely ignorance. And that (ignorance) is removable by Knowledge of Truth alone. When that is removed by Knowledge of Truth, for that Knower of Self, there remains no purpose whatsoever achievable by action or achievable by knowledge—this is the meaning.

(Objection): Even for such a person, actions must indeed be performed for the avoidance of sin (Pratyavaya)? To this He says— 'Na akritena' (nor by non-performance)—here the suffix is in the sense of 'state of being' (Bhava). By the non-performance of obligatory duties, there is no 'purpose' (meaning negative result) in this world, either in the form of being blameworthy or in the form of accruing sin.

In the second half (of the verse), He states the reasoning applicable everywhere. 'Cha' is in the sense of 'cause/reason'. Since for this Knower of Self, among all beings—from Brahma down to a blade of grass/immovable object—there is no 'Artha-vyapashraya', meaning no connection with any purpose; meaning, relying on any specific being, there is no purpose accomplishable by action—this is the meaning of the sentence. Therefore, for him, things done and not done are purposeless. As per the Shruti: 'Things done and not done do not burn (trouble) him.' And since it is said, 'Indeed, even the gods are not able to prevent his becoming That (Brahman), for he becomes their very Self'—meaning even gods are not capable of obstructing his liberation—the intention is that the performance of actions in the form of worshiping gods is not required even for the absence of obstacles.

Such a Knower of Brahman is described by Vasistha through the division of seven stages (Bhumikas): 'The ground of knowledge: 'Shubhecha' (Good Desire) is proclaimed as the first. 'Vicharana' (Inquiry) is the second, and 'Tanumanasa' (Thinning of the mind) is the third. 'Sattvapatti' (Attainment of Truth) is the fourth, then the one named 'Asamsakti' (Detachment). 'Padarthabhavani' (Non-perception of objects) is the sixth, and the seventh is known as 'Turyaga' (Going into the Fourth).'

Among them, the desire for liberation preceded by the discrimination between eternal and non-eternal objects, etc., which leads to the fruit, is the First. Then, approaching a Guru, the inquiry into Vedanta statements consisting of Shravana (hearing) and Manana (reflection) is the Second. Then, through the practice of Nididhyasana (contemplation), the fitness of the mind to grasp the subtle Reality through one-pointedness is the Third. This triad of stages is the means (Sadhana) and is called the 'Waking State' (Jagrat) by Yogis, because the world appears without distinction (from the waking perspective). That is stated: 'O Rama, this triad of stages is established as Waking. In this, the world is seen as it is in the waking state with a perception of difference.'

Then, the direct realization of the oneness of Brahman and the Self arising from Vedanta statements, which is the fruit, is the Fourth stage, 'Sattvapatti'; it is called the 'Dream State' (Swapna). Because the entire world flashes as false. That is stated: 'When non-duality has become stable and duality has become pacified, those who have gone to the Fourth stage see the world like a dream.' The Yogi who has reached this Fourth stage is called 'Brahmavit' (Knower of Brahman).

The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh stages are but intermediate subdivisions of Jivanmukti (Liberation while living). Among them, when the mind is restrained through the practice of Savikalpa Samadhi, the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi is called 'Asamsakti' and 'Sushupti' (Deep Sleep). Because he wakes up from it by himself. This Yogi is a 'Brahmavid-vara' (Better Knower of Brahman).

Then, through the maturity of that practice, the state which lasts for a long time is called 'Padarthabhavani' and 'Gadha-Sushupti' (Deep Deep Sleep). Because the Yogi does not wake up from it by himself but wakes up only through the effort of others; he is 'Brahmavid-variyan' (Superior Knower of Brahman). It is indeed stated: 'Having reached the Fifth stage named the state of Sushupti, he falls (enters) gradually into the Sixth stage named Gadha-Sushupti.'

But that state of Samadhi from which he does not wake up either by himself or by others—because of the total absence of the perception of duality—but always remains identical with That alone, without his own effort, with bodily activities being carried on by others under the control of the Life-force prompted by the Supreme Lord, remaining everywhere as a mass of complete Supreme Bliss—that is the Seventh, the 'Turiya' (Fourth) state. One who has attained that is called 'Brahmavid-varishtha' (Best Knower of Brahman). It is stated: 'Remaining in the Sixth ground, he may attain the Seventh ground. He is completely accomplished (full) or he is nothing (void-like). Liberation without body (Videhamukti) is called the Seventh Yoga-ground. It is unreachable by words, peaceful, and the limit among Yoga-grounds.'

Referring to this, it is remembered in the Shrimad Bhagavatam: 'The perfected soul does not notice the perishable body, whether it is remaining or risen (gone), because he has attained his true nature. Just as a man blinded by intoxication of liquor does not notice whether his garment is put on by chance or has fallen off by chance. The body also indeed is under the control of Destiny; it waits along with the life-forces as long as the Karma that initiated it (Prarabdha) lasts. He who has ascended to the Yoga of Samadhi and has awakened to the Reality does not again accept that (body) along with the manifold world, treating it like a dream.' And the Shruti says: 'Just as the slough of a snake might lie dead and cast off on an anthill, so does this body lie; then this bodiless, immortal, Life-breath is Brahman alone, Light alone.'

Here is the summary: 'The Fourth stage is Knowledge; the three before are the means. And the states of Jivanmukti are proclaimed to be the subsequent three.' The intention here is: If even an ignorant person who has ascended to the first three stages is not fit for Karma, then what to speak of the Knower of Truth, or the Jivanmukta distinguished by that (knowledge)?

For that such devotee, there is no "artha"—meaning purpose in the form of merit etc.—even with action performed. And with non-performance, there is no "pratyavāya" (adverse consequence), sin, etc.—this is the meaning.

For this devotee, among all beings—gods and the like—there is no "vyapāśraya," meaning shelter or resort, for the sake of any object, or for the sake of liberation, devotion, etc.—this is the meaning.

For him, the one delighting in the Supreme Self, there is absolutely no "artha"—meaning purpose—with action performed. (Objection): Let there be, then, the evil called "sin" (pratyavāya) "akṛtena"—due to non-performance? (Reply): "Na" (No); with "akṛtena" (non-performance), there is in this world no [evil] whatsoever—in the form of incurring sin or characterized by loss of oneself.

And for him, among all beings—from Brahma down to unmoving objects—there is no "arthavyapāśrayaḥ"; meaning there is no "vyapāśraya"—"vyapāśrayaṇam" or dependence/resort—achievable by action motivated by a purpose. There is no object/purpose to be achieved by resorting to any specific being, for which action for that sake would need to be performed.

You are not [yet] in this Right Vision which is comparable to the "flood of water everywhere." Since it is so...

"Naiva" (Not at all) etc. For him, there is no "artha"—meaning fruit like happiness, misery, etc.—by "kṛtena" (action performed) or by prohibited action.

Moreover, for the sake of any object/purpose, there is no shelter/dependence whatsoever.

न not? एव even? तस्य of hi? कृतेन by action? अर्थः concern? न not? अकृतेन by actions not done? इह here? कश्चन् any? न not? च and? अस्य of this man? सर्वभूतेषु in all beings? कश्चित् any? अर्थव्यपाश्रयः depending for any object.Commentary The sage who is thus rejoicing in the Self does not gain anything by doing any action. For him really no purpose is served by an action. No evil (Pratyavaya Dosha) can touch him from inaction. He does not lose anything from inaction. He need not depend upon anybody to gain a particular object. He need not exert himself to get the favour of anybody.

Moreover, tasya, for him, who rejoices in the supreme Self; na, there is no; artham, concern; eva, at all; krtena, with performing action.
Objection: In that case, let there be some evil called sin owing to non-performance!
Reply: Iha, here, in this world; na, nor is there; for him kascana, any (concern); akrtena, with nonperfromance. Certainly there is no evil in the form of incurring sin or in the form of self-destruction. Ca, moreover; asya, for him; na asti, there is no; kascit artha-vyapasrayah sarva-bhutesu, dependence on any object, from Brahma to an unmoving thing, to serve any purpose. Vyapasrayah is the same as vyapasrayanam, dependence, which is possible of being created by action promted by necessity. (For him) there is no end to gain by depending on any praticular object, due to which there can be some action for that purpose.
'You (Arjuna) are not established in this fullest realization which is comparable to a flood all around.'

Thus, for such a one there is no purpose, i.e., nothing to be gained from work done as a means for the vision of the self, nor is he subject to any evil or calamity from work left undone, because his vision of the self does not rest on any external means. To such a person who has turned by himself away from non-intelligent matter which is different from the self, there is nothing acceptable as a purpose to be gained from the constituents of Prakrti and their products; only if there were such a purpose, there would be the need for the means of retreat therefrom. For, the adoption of the means is only for effecting such a retreat. But he is verily liberated.
Non-pursuit of the means for vision of the self is only for that person whose vision of the self no longer depends on any means. But Karma Yoga is better in gaining the vision of the self for one who is in pursuit of the means for that vision, because it is easy to perfom, because it is secure from possible error, because the contemplation of the true nature of the self is included in it, and because even for a Jnana Yogin the performance of minimum activity is necessary. For these reasons, Karma Yoga is better as a means for the vision of the Atman.