Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 26

व्याख्या--'सक्ताः कर्मण्यविद्वांसो तथा कुर्वन्ति भारत'-- जिन मनुष्योंकी शास्त्र, शास्त्र-पद्धति और शास्त्र-विहित शुभकर्मोंपर पूरी श्रद्धा है एवं शास्त्रविहित कर्मोंका फल अवश्य मिलता है-- इस बातपर पूरा विश्वास है; जो न तो तत्त्वज्ञ हैं और न दुराचारी हैं; किन्तु कर्मों, भोगों एवं पदार्थोंमें आसक्त हैं, ऐसे मनुष्योंके लिये यहाँ 'सक्ताः अविद्वांसः' पद आये हैं। शास्त्रोंके ज्ञाता होनेपर भी केवल कामनाके कारण ऐसे मनुष्य अविद्वान् (अज्ञानी) कहे गये हैं। ऐसे पुरुष शास्त्रज्ञ तो हैं, पर तत्त्वज्ञ नहीं। ये केवल अपने लिये कर्म करते हैं, इसीलिये अज्ञानी कहलाते हैं।ऐसे अविद्वान् मनुष्य कर्मोंमें कभी प्रमाद, आलस्य आदि न रखकर सावधानी और तत्परतापूर्वक साङ्गोपाङ्ग विधिसे कर्म करते हैं; क्योंकि उनकी ऐसी मान्यता रहती है कि कर्मोंको करनेमें कोई कमी आ जानेसे उनके फलमें भी कमी आ जायगी। भगवान् उनके इस प्रकार कर्म करनेकी रीतिको आदर्श मानकर सर्वथा आसक्तिरहित विद्वान्के लिये भी इसी विधिसे लोकसंग्रहके लिये कर्म करनेकी प्रेरणा करते हैं।
'कुर्याद्विद्वांस्तथासक्तश्चिकीर्षुर्लोकसंग्रहम्'-- जिसमें कामना, ममता, आसक्ति, वासना, पक्षपात, स्वार्थ आदिका सर्वथा अभाव हो गया है और शरीरादि पदार्थोंके साथ किञ्चिन्मात्र भी लगाव नहीं रहा, ऐसे तत्त्वज्ञ महापुरुषके लिये यहाँ 'असक्तः विद्वान्' पद आये हैं (टिप्पणी प0 158)।बीसवें 'श्लोकमें''लोकसंग्रहमेवापि संपश्यन्' कहकर फिर इक्कीसवें श्लोकमें जिसकी व्याख्या की गयी, उसीको यहाँ 'लोकसंग्रहं चिकीर्षुः'पदोंसे कहा गया है।श्रेष्ठ मनुष्य (आसक्तिरहित विद्वान्) के सभी आचरण स्वाभाविक ही यज्ञके लिये, मर्यादा सुरक्षित रखनेके लिये होते हैं। जैसे भोगी मनुष्यकी भोगोंमें, मोही मनुष्यकी कुटुम्बमें और लोभी मनुष्यकी धनमें रति होती है, ऐसे ही श्रेष्ठ मनुष्यकी प्राणिमात्रके हितमें रति होती है। उसके अन्तःकरणमें 'मैं लोकहित करता हूँ'-- ऐसा भाव भी नहीं होता, प्रत्युत उसके द्वारा स्वतः-स्वाभाविक लोकहित होता है। प्राकृत पदार्थमात्रसे सर्वथा सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद हो जानेके कारण उस ज्ञानी महापुरुषके कहलानेवाले शरीर, इन्द्रियाँ, मन, बुद्धि आदि भी 'लोकसंग्रह' पदमें आये 'लोक' शब्दके अन्तर्गत आते हैं।दूसरे लोगोंको ऐसे ज्ञानी महापुरुष लोकसंग्रहकी इच्छावाले दीखते हैं, पर वास्तवमें उनमें लोकसंग्रहकी भी इच्छा नहीं होती। कारण कि वे संसारसे प्राप्त शरीर, इन्द्रियाँ, मन, बुद्धि, पदार्थ, पद, अधिकार, धन, योग्यता, सामर्थ्य आदिको साधनावस्थासे ही कभी किञ्चिन्मात्र भी अपने और अपने लिये नहीं मानते, प्रत्युत संसारके और संसारकी सेवाके लिये ही मानते हैं, जो कि वास्तवमें है। वही प्रवाह रहनेके कारण सिद्धावस्थामें भी उनके कहलानेवाले शरीरादि पदार्थ स्वतःस्वाभाविक, किसी प्रकारकी इच्छाके बिना संसारकी सेवामें लगे रहते हैं।इस श्लोकमें 'यथा' और 'तथा' पद कर्म करनेके प्रकारके अर्थमें आये हैं। तात्पर्य यह है कि जिस प्रकार अज्ञानी (सकाम) पुरुष अपने स्वार्थके लिये सावधानी और तत्परतापूर्वक कर्म करते हैं, उसी प्रकार ज्ञानी पुरुष भी लोकसंग्रह अर्थात् दूसरोंके हितके लिये कर्म करे। ज्ञानी पुरुषको प्राणिमात्रके हितका भाव रखकर सम्पूर्ण लौकिक और वैदिक कर्तव्य-कर्मोंका आचरण करते रहना चाहिये। सबका कल्याण कैसे हो?-- इस भावसे कर्तव्य-कर्म करनेपर लोकमें अच्छे भावोंका प्रचार स्वतः होता है।अज्ञानी पुरुष तो फलकी प्राप्तिके लिये सावधानी और तत्परतासे विधिपूर्वक कर्तव्य-कर्म करता है, पर ज्ञानी पुरुषकी फलमें आसक्ति नहीं होती और उसके लिये कोई कर्तव्य भी नहीं होता। अतः उसके द्वारा कर्मकी उपेक्षा होना सम्भव है। इसीलिये भगवान् कर्म करनेके विषयमें ज्ञानी पुरुषको भी अज्ञानी (सकाम) पुरुषकी ही तरह कर्म करनेकी आज्ञा देते हैं।इक्कीसवें श्लोकमें तो विद्वान्को 'आदर्श' बताया गया था पर यहाँ उसे 'अनुयायी' बताया है। तात्पर्य यह है कि विद्वान् चाहे आदर्श हो अथवा अनुयायी, उसके द्वारा स्वतः लोगसंग्रह होता है। जैसे भगवान् श्रीराम प्रजाको उपदेश भी देते हैं और पिताजीकी आज्ञाका पालन करके वनवास भी जाते हैं। दोनों ही परिस्थितियोंमें उनके द्वारा लोकसंग्रह होता है; क्योंकि उनका कर्मोंके करने अथवा न करनेसे अपना कोई प्रयोजन नहीं था।जब विद्वान् आसक्तिरहित होकर कर्तव्य-कर्म करता है, तब आसक्तियुक्त चित्तवाले पुरुषोंके अन्तःकरणपर भी विद्वान्के कर्मोंका स्वतः प्रभाव पड़ता है, चाहे उन पुरुषोंको यह महापुरुष निष्कामभावसे कर्म कर रहा है'-- ऐसा प्रत्यक्ष दीखे या न दीखे। मनुष्यके निष्कामभावोंका दूसरोंपर स्वाभाविक प्रभाव पड़ता है-- यह सिद्धान्त है। इसलिये आसक्तिरहित विद्वान्के भावों आचरणोंका प्रभाव मनुष्योंपर ही नहीं, अपितु पशु-पक्षी आदिपर भी पड़ता है।

इस प्रकार लोकसंग्रह करनेकी इच्छावाले मुझ परमात्माका या दूसरे आत्मज्ञानीका लोकसंग्रहको छोड़कर दूसरा कोई कर्तव्य नहीं रह गया है। अतः उस आत्मवेत्ताके लिये यह उपदेश किया जाता है बुद्धिको विचलित करनेका नाम बुद्धिभेद है ( ज्ञानीको चाहिये कि ) कर्मोंमें आसक्तिवाले विवेकरहित अज्ञानियोंकी बुद्धिमें भेद उत्पन्न न करे अर्थात् मेरा यह कर्तव्य है इस कर्मका फल मुझे भोगना है इस प्रकार जो उनकी निश्चितरूपा बुद्धि बनी हुई है उसको विचलित करना बुद्धिभेद करना है सो न करे। तो फिर क्या करे समाहितचित्त विद्वान् स्वयं अज्ञानियोंके ही ( सदृश ) उन कर्मोंका ( शास्त्रानुकूल ) आचरण करता हुआ उनसे सब कर्म करावे।

Recapitulating what has been said, he introduces the next verse with "Evam" (thus), etc. "Action must be performed" is the remainder (to be supplied).

Having thus explained the first half (of the verse), he introduces the second half with a question and explains it, saying "But should he do?" (kiṃtu kuryāt), etc. "He should make them perform all actions, generating delight in them"—this is the remainder (to be supplied).

Anticipating the question "How should he make them perform?" He says "that very thing" (tat eva).

To the Knower of Truth desiring Lokasangraha (world-maintenance), this is instructed: "Na" (not), etc. He should not generate a splitting (breaking) or shaking of the intellect of the ignorant—who are therefore attached to action, engrossed in action for the sake of fruit, whose intellect is fixed in the belief that "this action must necessarily be done and its fruit must be enjoyed"—by instructions like "Not action" (i.e., cessation of action).

But the wise man, being yukta (steadfast) and composed (samāhitaḥ), should make them perform all actions by himself performing the actions of the unwise (aviduṣām).

Otherwise, with the removal of their faith in action, due to the absence of purification of the mind, and the non-attainment of knowledge, there would be a fall from both (paths)—this is the sentiment.

The wise man should not generate, i.e., not create, a splitting or shaking of the intellect of the ignorant who are attached to actions. But he should make them perform, i.e., engage in (sevayet), all actions.

How?

By performing action himself, being yukta (attentive/steadfast) and respected (ādṛta).

He should not generate a splitting of the intellect of the ignorant—who, due to being incomplete knowers of the Self, are unqualified for adopting Jnana Yoga, are seekers of liberation, are attached to action, and are qualified for Karma Yoga due to being fixed in action by the beginningless impression of action (karma-vasana)—[by suggesting] that Self-vision exists in a way other than through Karma Yoga.

What then? Even though qualified for Jnana Yoga due to being a complete knower of the Self, and being established in the conviction that "Karma Yoga alone, independent of Jnana Yoga, is the means to Self-vision" in the manner stated before, performing action alone, he should generate delight in all actions for those of incomplete knowledge.

Now, showing the distinction between the wise man and the unwise man performing Karma Yoga, He instructs the method of contemplating the non-agency of the Self, which is required in Karma Yoga.

(Objection): "But out of compassion, is it not proper to instruct the knowledge of Truth itself?" He says "no" with "Na" (not), etc.

He should not generate "bheda" (splitting), meaning "anyathātva" (deviation), of the intellect of the ignorant—who are therefore attached to action, engrossed in action—by instructing the non-agency of the Self. He should not cause the intellect to shift away from action, but rather he should "joṣayet"—meaning make them engage (sevayet). (The root 'juṣ' means delight and service/engagement). He should make the ignorant perform actions.

How? By performing action himself, being yukta—meaning attentive (avahita)—and steadfast.

The sentiment is that if the intellect is unsettled, due to the cessation of faith in action and the non-generation of knowledge, there would be a fall from both (paths).

The unification and acceptance of the people (Lokasangraha) means making them similar (to oneself) in intention through one's own practice, creating a shared community (sayūthyatā)—this is the meaning. "Karma-vāsanā" (the latent impression of action) is the specific remnant of previous merit and demerit that initiates subsequent merit and demerit, or it is the cause of the memory capable of motivating subsequent bodies, or the impression generated by the specific experience of motivation in previous bodies, similar to the impression of playing a musical instrument.

"Buddhi-bheda" (splitting of the intellect) is the deviation (making otherwise) of the intellect; and that deviation refers to the current subject, shown by "other than Karma Yoga," etc. The term yuktaḥ (steadfast) implies that for one performing action for Lokasangraha, to avoid self-imposed delay (in attaining the goal), the conviction regarding the independence (nirapekṣatva) of the intellect mentioned before is intended—with this intention, it is said "established in conviction."

The meaning of "joṣayet" is "prītiṃ janayet" (generate delight). The root 'juṣ' means delight and service/engagement. The syntax is: he should make the men attached to action engage in all actions.

He states the meaning of the next four verses (3.27-3.30) with "Karma Yoga," etc. The meaning of the two verses (3.27-3.28) is given in inverse order (vaiṣkramata) of the wise and unwise. In the third (3.29), non-shaking (avichālana) is stated by means of elaborating on this. "Karma-yogāpekṣitam" means that which constitutes the procedure (itikartavyatā) of Karma Yoga.

When "by the qualities of Prakriti" is stated, He explains the specific meaning established by fame and pre-eminence, etc., as "by Sattva, etc." (sattvādibhiḥ) to exclude unsuitable worldly qualities like sound, etc., from the present context. The subsequent division of Sattvic etc. actions, which is indicated by the type-denoting word "sarvaśaḥ" (in every way), is explained as "appropriate to oneself" (svānurūpam).

Since the genitive case (sixth case) might be expected from the use of the agent-denoting affix tṛj (in kartā), to avoid that and to prevent the mistaken notion of the pride of agency in actions, it is stated "regarding actions."

The meaning of the compound word "ahaṅkāravimūḍhātmā" (whose self is bewildered by egoism), which has three common parts and multiple meanings, is intended here, and He analyzes it with "by egoism," etc. Here, only the general sense of "I-ness" is not meant, as that is inherent in the nature of the Self. Nor is the inert substance called "Ahaṅkāra" (egoism) meant, as it is appropriate to speak of the immediate cause (i.e., the error itself) when the substance also acts through the illusion of self-in-body. Nor is "pride" (garva) meant, as it is not specified here as the cause of insult to the excellent, etc. Therefore, "Ahaṅkāra" is intended here as the illusion of the self in the body—with this intention, it is said: "Ahaṅkāra is the self-pride in the non-Self (Prakriti)." This also shows the derivation of the word Ahaṅkāra by the cvī suffix (meaning 'becoming what one was not before').

"Vimūḍhātmā" means one whose self/nature is bewildered; just as in "the directions are bewildered," the word vimūḍha here is co-referential with the object of delusion—this is the idea.

In "guṇa-karma-vibhāgayoḥ" (in the divisions of qualities and actions), the locative case (seventh case) denoting the subject matter is appropriate, even though the genitive case is connected with a secondary term—with this thought, it is stated "in the division of Sattva, etc., qualities and in the division of those respective actions." The word vibhāga (division), being subsequent to the dual compound, is connected with each term. Since qualities do not directly function in qualities, and the term guṇa (quality) ending in the locative case is used metaphorically for the effects of the qualities—by applying the two terms to senses and their objects via the stated process—it is stated "in their own qualities, in their own effects." The effects of the qualities will be divided later. Or, this is stated due to the pre-eminence of the cause and the subordinate nature of the effect relative to it.

यह संभव है कि आत्मानुभूति के पश्चात् ज्ञानी पुरुष जब कार्य क्षेत्र में प्रवेश करे तो तत्त्वज्ञान का सर्वोच्च उपदेश देना प्रारम्भ कर दे जिसे समझने की योग्यता लोगों में न हो। उस पीढ़ी के लोग उस विद्वान पुरुष के कथन का विपरीत अर्थ लगाकर यह समझ सकते हैं कि कर्म का संन्यास सत्य की प्राप्ति का सीधा मार्ग है। ऐसे गुरुओं को यहाँ सावधान किया गया है क्यांेकि इससे लोगों का कर्म करने में उत्साह कम हो सकता है।जीवन गतिशील है। कोई भी निष्क्रिय होकर बैठ नहीं सकता। जीवन की निरन्तर अग्रगामी कर्मरूपी गतिशील धारा के प्रवाह के मध्य में यदि कोई मार्गदर्शक गुरु दोनों हाथ उठाकर अपनी पीढ़ी के लोगों को अकस्मात रुकने का आदेश दें तो उस प्रवाह में वे स्वयं ही छिन्नभिन्न होकर रह जायेंगे। अनेक धर्मोपदेशकों ने यह गलती की और उन्हें उसका मूल्य भी चुकाना पड़ा। यहाँ श्रीकृष्ण मार्गदर्शन करते हुये कहते हैं कि ऐसे धर्मोपदेशकों को चाहिये कि वे समय की गति को पहचान कर कार्य करें जीवनी शक्ति का विरोध करके नहीं।समाज के मार्गदर्शन की पद्धति इस श्लोक में बताई गई है जो समस्त नेतृत्व वर्ग के लिये उपयोगी है। वे सामाजिक राजनैतिक अथवा सांस्कृतिक किसी भी क्षेत्र में क्यों न कार्य कर रहे हों। यदि किसी काल में कोई समाज किसी विशेष दिशा में आगे बढ़ रहा हो तो नेता को अपनी पीढ़ी के साथ मिलकर स्वयं के उदाहरण के द्वारा धीरेधीरे लोगों को सही दिशा में ले जाने का प्रयत्न करना चाहिये।यदि कोई व्यक्ति हरिद्वार जाने के लिये कार को तेज गति से परन्तु विपरीत दिशा में चला रहा हो तो उसकी दिशा सुधारने का उपाय यह नहीं कि अचानक उसे रोक दें किन्तु उसकी दिशा मात्र को बदलें। कार के रुक जाने मात्र से वह किसी लक्ष्य तक नहीं पहुँच सकेगा।इसी प्रकार मनुष्य को कर्म करते रहना चाहिये। यदि वह गलत दिशा में भी जा रहा हो तो केवल कर्म से ही वह सही दिशा में आगे बढ़ सकता है। विद्वान् पुरुष अज्ञानी को कर्म की प्रवृत्ति से विचलित न करे बल्कि स्वयं कुशलतापूर्वक कर्म का आचरण करे जिससे सामान्य जन उसका सरलता से अनुसरण कर सकें।किस प्रकार अज्ञानी पुरुष कर्म में आसक्त होता है

Because they are not purified by perfect knowledge, therefore, because the splitting (bheda) and shaking (vicālana) of their intellect is the supreme calamity for them, out of compassion, he (the wise man) should not cause a splitting of their intellect; thus He says "na buddhi" (not intellect), etc.

And he himself, understanding thus, should perform actions, and should not split the intellect of the people.

Objection: 'Lokasamgraha (holding the world together) should be done only by the performance of action, and not by the instruction of Tattva-jnana (knowledge of Reality)'—what is the reason for this? On this, He says—For the ignorant, the undiscriminating, those attached to action through pride of doership and desire for fruit, those deeply engrossed in action, the understanding they have—'I will do this action and I will enjoy this fruit'—that understanding's division, i.e., shaking/disturbance, one should not create through instruction on the non-doer Self.

But rather, being 'Yuktah', i.e., attentive, the wise man, wishing to bring about Lokasamgraha, performing all actions that are within the qualification of the ignorant, should generate faith in them and 'Joshayet', i.e., make them serve/perform with love.

If the understanding is shaken by teaching those who are unqualified, then due to the cessation of faith in actions and the non-arising of knowledge, there would be a state of being fallen from both.

And thus it is said: 'He who tells an ignorant or half-awakened person that 'All is Brahman', he is engaged by that (act) in entangling him in great networks of hell' thus.

(Objection): "If action must be performed only for Lokasangraha, then it should be performed somehow (any way). What is the purpose of acting as they do (ignorantly)?" Anticipating this desire for knowledge, He says "na buddhibhedaṃ janayet" (should not generate splitting of the intellect). He should not generate a splitting of the intellect of those attached to action. If that is done, delusion would occur to them, and in delusion, they would not perform action at all.

(Objection): "But if mental purification occurs through action, how would delusion arise?" To this He says "ajñānām" (of the ignorant). For the ignorant do not perform action for mental purification; rather, regarding action itself as God, they perform action seeing another Pandit (wise man) performing action for the sake of fruit. Therefore, they are called "attached to action" (karmasaṅginām), not merely "performers of action" (karmiṇām).

The wise man, being yukta (steadfast), establishing Me in his heart, being devoted to Me, himself practicing properly, should always make others—the ignorant—perform actions for the sake of their maintenance (vṛtti); meaning, he should make them perform action.

"Buddhibhedaḥ" (splitting of the intellect) is the breaking (bhedanam) or shaking (cālanam) of the intellect—the intellect which is characterized by the fixed conviction that "This must be done by me, and the fruit of this action must be enjoyed." He should not generate or produce that (bhedana) in the ignorant, the indiscerning, who are attached to action, meaning engrossed/bound to action.

What should he do? He should "joṣayet," meaning make them perform, all actions. The wise man, himself performing the very same actions of the unwise (aviduṣām), being yuktaḥ (steadfast/composed), meaning engaged (abhiyuktaḥ), and practicing properly.

"How does the unwise, ignorant person become attached to actions?" He says (in the next verse, 3.27).

(Objection): "But among the ignorant, who are attached and fixed in action, out of compassion, is it not proper for the wise man to instruct the difference in the Sāṅkhya method (the non-agency of the Self)?" He says "No, no"—He states this with "na buddhibhedam" (not splitting the intellect).

If the difference in method is instructed, it would only result in the splitting of their intellect, because it is known that they are attached to fruit, etc.

Therefore, he should "joṣayet," meaning delight and make them engage, by himself performing action, and should teach them slowly, slowly, with the intention of gradual restraint/limitation (parisaṅkhyā).

Otherwise (if he teaches Sāṅkhya difference abruptly), splitting of the intellect will occur.

न not? बुद्धिभेदम् unsettlement in the mind? जनयेत् should produce? अज्ञानाम् of the ignorant? कर्मसङ्गिनाम् of the persons attached to actions? जोषयेत् should engage? सर्वकर्माणि all actions? विद्वान् the wise? युक्तः balanced? समाचरन् performing.Commentary An ignorant may says to himelf? I shall do this action and thery enjoy its fruit. A wise man should not unsettle his belief. On the contrary he himself should set an example by performing his duties diligently but without attachment. The wise man should also persuade the ignorant never to neglect their duties. If need be? he should place before them in vivid colours the happiness they would enjoy here and hereafter by discharging such duties. When their hearts get purified in course of time? the wise man could sow the seeds of Karma Yoga (selfless service without deire) in them.

Vidvan the enlightened man; na janayet, should not create; buddhi-bhedam, disturbance in the beliefs-disturbance in the firm belief, 'This has to be done; and the result of this action is to be reaped by me'; ajnanam, of the ignorant, of the non-discriminating one; karma-sanginam, who are attached to work. But what should he do? Himself samacaran, working, performing those very activities of the ignorant; yuktah, while remaining diligent; josayet, he should make them do; sarva-karmani, all the duties.
How does an anillumined, ignorant person be come attached to actions? In reply the Lord says:

Do not bewilder the minds of ignorant aspirants by saying that there is, besides Karma Yoga, another way to the vision of the self. They cannot practise Jnana Yoga on account of their incomplete knowledge of the self, and attachment to action. They are alified for Karma Yoga because of their being fit only for activity on account of the subtle impressions of their beginningless Karma. What then follows from this? It is this: Even though one is alified for Jnana Yoga because of the complete knowledge of the self, one should do work, holding the view as said previously, that Karma Yoga by itself without Jnana Yoga is an independent means for the vision of the self. He should thus generate love for all types of activity among those who do not know the complete truth.
Sri Krsna declares (in the verses 27 to 30) the way in which the self is to be contemplated on as not being an agent as reired by Karma Yoga, after demonstrating the difference between the enlightened and unenlightened among those practising Karma Yoga.