Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 24

व्याख्या-- [बाईसवें श्लोकमें भगवान्ने अन्वय-रीतिसे कर्तव्य-पालनकी आवश्यकताका प्रतिपादन किया और इन श्लोकोंमें भगवान् व्यतिरेक-रीतिसे कर्तव्य-पालन न करनेसे होनेवाली हानिका प्रतिपादन करते हैं।]यदि ह्यहं न वर्तेयं जातु कर्मण्यतन्द्रितः पूर्वश्लोकमें आये 'वर्त एव च कर्मणि' पदोंकी पुष्टिके लिये यहाँ 'हि'पद आया है।भगवान् कहते हैं कि मैं सावधानीपूर्वक कर्म न करूँ--ऐसा हो ही नहीं सकता; परन्तु यदि ऐसा मान लें' कि मैं कर्म न करूँ-- इस अर्थमें भगवान्ने यहाँ 'यदि जातु' पदोंका प्रयोग किया है।'अतन्द्रितः' पदका तात्पर्य यह है कि कर्तव्य-कर्म करनेमें आलस्य और प्रमाद नहीं करना चाहिये, अपितु उन्हें बहुत सावधानी और तत्परतासे करना चाहिये। सावधानी-पूर्वक कर्तव्य-कर्म न करनेसे मनुष्य आलस्य और प्रमादके वशमें होकर अपना अमूल्य जीवन नष्ट कर देता है।कर्मोंमें शिथिलता (आलस्य-प्रमाद) न लाकर उन्हें सावधानी एवं तत्परतापूर्वक करनेसे ही कर्मोंसे सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद होता है। जैसे वृक्षकी कड़ी टहनी जल्दी टूट जाती है, पर जो अधूरी टूटनेके कारण लटक रही है, ऐसी शिथिल (ढीली) टहनी जल्दी नहीं टूटती, ऐसे ही सावधानी एवं तत्परतापूर्वक कर्म करनेसे कर्मोंसे सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद हो जाता है, पर आलस्य-प्रमादपूर्वक (शिथिलतापूर्वक) कर्म करनेसे कर्मोंसे सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद नहीं होता। इसीलिये भगवान्ने उन्नीसवें श्लोकमें 'समाचर' पदका तथा इस श्लोकमें'अतन्द्रितः' पदका प्रयोग किया है।अगर किसी कर्मकी बार-बार याद आती है, तो यही समझना चाहिये कि कर्म करनेमें कोई त्रुटि (कामना, आसक्ति, अपूर्णता, आलस्य, प्रमाद, उपेक्षा आदि) हुई है, जिसके कारण उस कर्मसे सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद नहीं हुआ है। कर्मसे सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद न होनेके कारण ही किये गये कर्मकी याद आती है।'मम वर्त्मानुवर्तन्ते मनुष्याः पार्थ सर्वशः' इन पदोंसे भगवान् मानो यह कहते हैं कि मेरे मार्गका अनुसरण करनेवाले ही वास्तवमें मनुष्य कहलानेयोग्य हैं। जो मुझे आदर्श न मानकर आलस्य-प्रमादवश कर्तव्य-कर्म नहीं करते और अधिकार चाहते हैं, वे आकृतिसे मनुष्य होनेपर भी वास्तवमें मनुष्य कहलानेयोग्य नहीं हैं।इसी अध्यायके इक्कीसवें श्लोकमें भगवान्ने कहा था कि श्रेष्ठ पुरुषके आचरण और प्रमाणके अनुसार सब मनुष्य उनका अनुसरण करते हैं और इस श्लोकमें भगवान् कहते हैं कि मनुष्य सब प्रकारसे मेरे मार्गका अनुसरण करते हैं। इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि श्रेष्ठ पुरुष तो एक ही लोक-(मनुष्यलोक-) में आदर्श पुरुष हैं पर मैं तीनों ही लोकोंमें आदर्श पुरुष हूँ।मनुष्यको संसारमें कैसे रहना चाहिये-- यह बतानेके लिये भगवान् मनुष्यलोकमें अवतरित होते हैं। संसारमें अपने लिये रहना ही नहीं है--यही संसारमें रहनेकी विद्या है। संसार वस्तुतः एक विद्यालय है, जहाँ हमें कामना, ममता, स्वार्थ आदिके त्यागपूर्वक दूसरोंके हितके लिये कर्म करना सीखना है और उसके अनुसार कर्म करके अपना उद्धार करना है। संसारके सभी सम्बन्धी एकदूसरेकी सेवा (हित) करनेके लिये ही हैं।इसीलिये पिता पुत्र पति पत्नी भाई बहन आदि सबको चाहिये कि वे एकदूसरेके अधिकारकी रक्षा करते हुए अपनेअपने कर्तव्य पालन करें और एक-दूसरेके कल्याणकी चेष्टा करें।

ऐसा होनेसे क्या दोष हो जायगा सो कहते हैं यदि मैं कर्म न करूँ तो लोकस्थितिके लिये किये जानेवाले कर्मोंका अभाव हो जानेसे यह सब लोक नष्ट हो जायँगे और मैं वर्णसंकरका कर्ता होऊँगा इसलिये इस प्रजाका नाश भी करूँगा अर्थात् प्रजापर अनुग्रह करनेमें लगा हुआ मैं इनका हनन करनेवाला बूनँगा। यह सब मुझ ईश्वरके अनुरूप नहीं होगा।

Suspecting that it is indeed proper for men to follow the path of you, the best, he refutes it with 'Tatha cha' (And thus) etc. He states the reason that if Isvara does not engage in action, action would be impossible for those following Him as well—'Lokasthiti' (maintenance of the world).

Moreover, action must be performed by Isvara; he says 'Kincha' (Moreover). 'If I do not perform action' is the remaining part (to be supplied). He states the effect of causing confusion (of castes/duties)—'Tena' (By that). If destruction of people is obtained, what is that to You? To this he says 'Prajanam' (Of the people).

Regarding the expectation: 'What would be the fault of everyone following You who are not acting?', since Isvara is fulfilled, if there is no performance of action, because those following Him would also lack that, there would be no cause for maintenance; this would lead to the destruction of beings like the earth, and the impossibility of the arrangement of Varna and Ashrama dharma; thus, qualified living beings would be struck by sin. Therefore, Isvara's engagement is for the grace of others—this has been said. Now, while performing action for Lokasamgraha, if knowledge is overpowered by the pride of doership, to counter that he says: 'Yadi punah' (If, however).

He states the reason for the intellect of being fulfilled—'Atmavit' (Knower of Self). Knowing the Self as It is, due to the absence of pride of doership etc., one becomes fulfilled indeed; this is the meaning. Even in one other than Arjuna, who possesses knowledge, the sense of fulfillment is equal in the absence of pride of duty etc.; he says 'Anyo va' (Or another).

Suspecting that for him, then, performance of action has no scope because it is fruitless, he says 'Tasyapi' (For him also). 'Kartavya' (To be done): Even by the knower of Self, action must be done solely for the grace of others—he says this; this is the completion.

And thus, what is the fault? On this, He says 'Utsideyuh' (would perish). If I were not to perform action, then these worlds would 'Utsideyuh', i.e., would perish, due to the absence of action which is the cause of the non-destruction of the worlds. And I would be the creator of intermixture (confusion of castes), and by that I would destroy these creatures; therefore, for Me, who has engaged for the grace of the creatures, this is not appropriate; this is the meaning.

As for the other interpretation of 'Yadyad acharati' (Whatever he does...)—'You ought to perform action not only looking at Lokasamgraha but also because it is the conduct of the best'—He says 'Yadyad'. And thus, 'Whatever kind of conduct is Mine, the best, exactly that should be practiced by you who follow Me, not another acting independently'—this is the meaning.

'Of what nature is Your conduct that is to be followed by me?'—in response to this expectation, 'Na me Partha' (There is nothing for Me...) and the following three verses demonstrate that; this explanation by some should be construed in accordance with the Bhashya.

Alternatively, following the previously stated 'Looking also only at Lokasamgraha, you ought to act', it is stated who wishes to do Lokasamgraha and how. The explanation 'Na kevalam' (Not only...) for 'Yadyad', which is contrary to the introduction stated in the Bhashya, is to be disregarded. Since 'Shishtachara' (conduct of the disciplined) has been stated by 'Karmanaiva' (By action alone...), and by showing the engagement of the wise in action for Lokasamgraha through 'Saktah' (Attached...) etc., it is confirmed thus: 'If you consider yourself wise, then looking now at Lokasamgraha, you ought to perform action'; therefore, even in the middle, by showing His own—the Best's—engagement in action, which is established by direct perception, He confirms the same.

The meaning brought out by the other interpretation is established by implication or even by the address/calling, so a strained interpretation contrary to the Bhashya should not be displayed for that purpose; this is the direction.

"Then what?"—to this He says "utsīdeyuḥ" (they would perish). This is another interpretation of "Whatever he practices" (yad yad ācharati - 3.21) etc.

"Not only considering the maintenance of the world (lokasaṃgraha) ought you to act, but also because it is the conduct of the Best"—thus He speaks with "yad yad".

And thus, "Whatever is the conduct of Me, the Best, that very conduct should be practiced by you who follow Me, and not another independently"—this is the meaning.

"What kind of conduct is Yours that is to be followed by me?"—in response to this expectation, that is demonstrated in the three verses beginning with "na me pārtha"—this is the view of the revered Madhusudana (Saraswati).

If I were not to perform the duties appropriate to My lineage, then in this very way all virtuous people—whose determination of Dharma depends on My conduct—would "utsīdeyuḥ," i.e., would perish, solely due to non-performance. Due to the non-observance of scriptural conduct, I would become the agent of the confusion (mixture) of all virtuous families; and for this very reason, I would destroy these creatures.

In this very same way, if you too—being Arjuna, the son of Pandu who was the foremost of virtuous men, and the younger brother of Yudhishthira—claiming distinction (shishtata), were to assert qualification in Jnana Nishtha (Path of Knowledge), then those following your conduct—the men of incomplete knowledge and the virtuous seekers of liberation—not knowing their own qualification and not engaging in Karma Nishtha, would perish.

Therefore, action alone must be performed by a distinguished wise man.

Then what?—To this He says "utsīdeyuḥ" (would perish). "Utsīdeyuḥ"—meaning they would be destroyed due to the omission of action.

And from that, confusion of castes (Varna-sankara) would arise, and of that too, I alone would be the creator.

Thus, I alone would destroy (upahanyām)—meaning tarnish or make impure (malinīkuryām)—these creatures.

(Objection): "Following only the scripture, they would not heed Your non-performance"—to this, He says "utsīdeyuḥ" (would perish). Considering that the word "loka" (world) appropriately refers to people devoted to conduct, he glosses it as "virtuous people" (shishta-loka). By the force of the word "ime" (these) and the plural number, "all" is stated. Since it is impossible for everyone to determine all scriptural meanings, and thus people fix their eyes on the conduct of the virtuous, considering this stated mode of following, he says "dependent on My conduct," etc.

Since meanings like physical scattering are impossible here, "utsāda" (ruin) here means destruction in the form of loss of human goals (Purushartha) and attainment of non-goals; thus he explains it as "naṣṭā bhaveyuḥ" (would be ruined). This is like the text "He becomes non-existent indeed" (Taittiriya). Regarding non-performance being the cause of ruin, "Sankara" (confusion) is the intermediate operation; and that (Sankara) here means the practice by Kshatriyas and others of duties belonging to Brahmanas and others, such as withdrawal from battle. "Upahati" (destruction/striking down) means unfitness for action even subsequently.

Having shown the meaning in Himself as the example, He implies the intended application to the subject (Arjuna) with "In this very way, you..." Regarding "Na me Partha asti" (3.22), he explains the three forms useful for being worthy of imitation, implied by the vocative "Partha," with "virtuous," etc. The mention of "Yudhishthira" is to encourage battle by highlighting steadfastness in the Kshatriya-dharma known as the "battle-sacrifice." "What need to mention your father and other relatives? You yourself are indeed famous for being the foremost among the virtuous through episodes like Urvashi and the daughter of Virata"—with this intention, he says "being Arjuna."

(Doubt): Dharma is to be practiced by the virtuous, and Jnana Yoga is the supreme Dharma; therefore, following that would lead to the world's liberation, so it would only be protection of the world (not ruin)? In response to this doubt, it is said "not knowing their own qualification." The sentiment is that by the entry of those unqualified for it into that (path), there would be a fall from both sides.

He concludes what was stated in "Lokasangraham" (3.20) etc. with "Therefore" (ataḥ).

ईश्वर के रूप में यदि मैं शासन न करूँ तो विश्व में उन्नति नहीं होगी और नियमबद्ध सृष्टि भी नष्ट हो जायेगी। विश्व कोई क्रमहीन रचना नहीं वरन् नियमबद्ध सृष्टि है। प्रकृति के नियम पालन में कहीं भी मर्यादा का उल्लंघन होता नहीं दिखाई देता।प्राकृतिक घटनायेंे ग्रहों की गति ऋतुओं का लयबद्ध नृत्य और सृष्टि का संगीत ये सब किसी महान् नियम के अनुसार चलते रहते हैं इसी को कहतेैं हैं प्रकृति और उसके नियामक ईश्वर की प्रबल शक्ति। इस ईश्वररूप में भगवान् के निष्क्रिय हो जाने पर ये लोक नष्ट हो जायेंगे। श्रीकृष्ण का यह कथन तर्क के विपरीत नहीं है जो केवल अन्धविश्वासी लोगों को ही स्वीकार होगा। विज्ञान की दृष्टि से विचार करने वाले लोग भी इसको अस्वीकार नहीं कर सकते।भगवान् केवल बाह्य जगत् के पदार्थों का संचालन करने वाले नियमों के ही नियामक नहीं बल्कि भावना एवं विचार के आन्तरिक जगत् के भी नियन्ता हैं। हिन्दू ऋषिमुनियों ने मानव समाज का चार वर्णों में जो वर्गीकरण किया उसका आधार मनुष्य का मानसिक स्वभाव एवं बौद्धिक क्षमता थी। यदि आन्तरिक जगत् में कोई नियम सुचारु रूप से काम न करें तो मनुष्य के व्यवहार और चरित्र में विचित्रता और अस्थिरता उत्पन्न होगी जिससे भ्रांति की वृद्धि होगी। वर्तमान में प्रचलित वर्णसंकर का अर्थ शास्त्र के विपरीत है जिसके कारण आज का शिक्षित व्यक्ति गीता की आलोचना करते हुये कह सकता है कि इसमें उच्च वर्ण की वर्चस्वता को ही भगवान की स्वीकृत है। वर्ण संकर के विषय में प्रथम अध्याय के 41वें श्लोक में विवेचन किया जा चुका है।आत्मज्ञान प्राप्त कर लेने पर स्वयं को कर्म से कोई प्रयोजन न होने पर भी ज्ञानी पुरुष को कर्म करना चाहिये। कैसे

From "Yadi" etc. up to "Lokasangraham" (refers to the verse range/meaning).

Moreover, if the Knower of the Known (Vidita-vedya) were to abandon action, then a "durbheda" (pernicious split/confusion) would indeed arise among the people, characterized by instability (lack of firm rooting), due to the loosening of the bond of faith in the one well-known path (action). Because: they are unable to release the latent impressions (vasanas) of action, nor are they able to take refuge in the stream of knowledge; and thus they become slack (fall from both).

For men to follow the path of you, the best, is indeed appropriate; (but) what is the fault in following (if I stop)? On this, He says—'If I, the Lord, were not to perform action, then because action would become impossible even for those like Manu who follow Me, due to the disappearance of action which is the cause of the world's stability, all these worlds would 'Utsideyuh', i.e., would perish. And consequently, I alone would be the creator of intermixture (of castes); and by that, I alone would destroy all these creatures, I would cause their ruin through the disappearance of Dharma. And how could I, the Lord, who engaged for the grace of the creatures, destroy them all?'—this is the intention.

There is another interpretation of 'Yadyad acharati' etc.—'You ought to perform action not only looking at Lokasamgraha, but also because it is the conduct of the best'—He says 'Yadyad'. And thus, 'Whatever kind of conduct is Mine, the best, exactly that should be practiced by you who follow Me, not another acting independently'—this is the meaning.

'Of what nature is Your conduct which is to be followed by me?'—in response to this expectation, 'Na me Partha' (There is nothing for Me...) and the following three verses demonstrate that.

(Objection): "Still, what is the purpose of performing that (action)?" To this, He says "utsīdeyuḥ" (would perish). "If I were not to perform action, then these worlds would perish." The sentiment here is this: If everyone were to engage in Devotion (Bhakti), then realization of God or liberation would occur (for all); then these worlds (the cosmic order of Manu, etc.) would be cut off (annihilated) due to the absence of creation (continuation of worldly existence).

That is why the Lord ordered Vrishabhadhvaja (Shiva) in the Padma Purana, in the passage starting "O mighty-armed Rudra..." and ending with "...this subsequent creation."

"And again, I would destroy these creatures"—then I alone would become the agent of "Sankara" (confusion), which is the means to hell.

This is the meaning: By My command, Brahma and others create progeny; if I were to destroy them—meaning, if I were to become unfavorable to that (by not acting)—then I would be the creator of a painful confusion. And regarding the creatures: if there is engagement (in Bhakti) without My will and while there is ignorance of the true nature of Bhakti, there would be "Sankara" (confusion/adulteration); and in the absence of the fruit, there would be a deviation (failure) of the fruit of Bhakti; even then, I alone would be the agent of that.

"Utsīdeyuḥ"—meaning they would perish, be destroyed—all these worlds; due to the absence of action which is the cause of the maintenance of the world, "if I were not to perform action." Moreover, "I would be the agent of confusion" (Sankara). For that reason, "I would destroy these creatures."

The meaning is: Having set out to bless the creatures, I would [instead] cause "upahatim"—meaning destruction. This would be unbecoming of Me, the Lord.

If, again, you—having the intellect of one who has attained the goal (Kritartha) and being a Knower of the Self—are like Me, or if there is another (such person), then for him too—even in the absence of duty for himself—grace upon others is indeed the duty; thus He says (in the next verse).

"Utsīdeyuḥ" (they would perish)—etc.

उत्सीदेयुः would perish? इमे these? लोकाः worlds? न not? कुर्याम् would do? कर्म action? चेत् if? अहम् I? सङ्करस्य of confusion of castes? च and? कर्ता author? स्याम् would be? उपहन्याम् would destroy? इमाःthese? प्रजाः beings.Commentary If I did not engage in action? people would also be inactive. They would not do their duties according to the Varnasrama Dharma (code of morals governing their own order and stage of life). Hence confusion of castes would arise. I would have to destroy these beings.

Cet, if; aham, I; na kuryam, do not perform; karma, action; all ime, these; lokah, worlds; utsideyuh, will be ruined, owing to the obsence of work responsible for the maintenance of the worlds. Ca, and, futher; syam, I shall become; karta, the agent; sankarasya, of intermingling (of castes). Conseently, upahanyam, I shall be destroying; imah, these; prajah, beings. That is to say, I who am engaged in helping the creatures, shall be destroying them. This would be unbefitting of Me, who am God.
'On the other, if, like Me, you or some one else possesses the conviction of having attained Perfection and is a knower of the Self, it is a duty of such a one, too, to help others even if there be no obligation on his own part.'

If I do not do the work suitable to My station in life, likewise all the virtuous men also, neglecting their duties by following My example, would be destroyed on account of not performing their duties. That is, they will become lost. Thus I would be bringing about chaos among all virtuous men on account of My failure to conduct Myself as prescribed in the scriptures. Therefore I would be destroying all these people. Even so, if you, Arjuna, a son of Pandu and a brother of Yudhisthira and the foremost of the virtuous, claim to be alified for Jnana Yoga, then the virtuous aspirants, who do not know everything and who follow your way, without knowing their own competency, would give up practising Karma Yoga and will be lost. Therefore work should be done by one who is recognised as learned and worthy.