Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 28

व्याख्या--'तत्त्ववित्तु महाबाहो गुणकर्मविभागयोः'-- पूर्वश्लोकमें वर्णित 'अहंकारविमूढात्मा' (अहंकारसे मोहित अन्तःकरणवाले पुरुष) से तत्त्वज्ञ महापुरुषको सर्वथा भिन्न और विलक्षण बतानेके लिये यहाँ 'तु' पदका प्रयोग हुआ है।सत्त्व, रज और तम--ये तीनों गुण प्रकृतिजन्य हैं। इन तीनों गुणोंका कार्य होनेसे सम्पूर्ण सृष्टि त्रिगुणात्मिका है। अतः शरीर, इन्द्रियाँ, मन, बुद्धि, प्राणी, पदार्थ आदि सब गुणमय ही हैं। यही 'गुण-विभाग' कहलाता है। इन (शरीरादि) से होनेवाली क्रिया 'कर्मविभाग' कहलाती है।गुण और कर्म अर्थात् पदार्थ और क्रियाएँ निरन्तर परिवर्तनशील हैं। पदार्थ उत्पन्न और नष्ट होनेवाले हैं तथा क्रियाएँ आरम्भ और समाप्त होनेवाली हैं। ऐसा ठीक-ठीक अनुभव करना ही गुण और कर्म-विभागको तत्त्वसे जानना है। चेतन (स्वरूप) में कभी क्रिया नहीं होती। वह सदा निर्लिप्त ,निर्विकार रहता है अर्थात् उसका किसी भी प्राकृत पदार्थ और क्रियासे सम्बन्ध नहीं होता। ऐसा ठीक-ठीक अनुभव करना ही चेतनको तत्त्वसे जानना है।अज्ञानी पुरुष जब इन गुण-विभाग और कर्म-विभागसे अपना सम्बन्ध मान लेता है, तब वह बँध जाता है। शास्त्रीय दृष्टिसे तो इस बन्धनका मुख्य कारण 'अज्ञान' है, पर साधककी दृष्टिसे 'राग' ही मुख्य कारण है। राग 'अविवेक' से होता है। विवेक जाग्रत् होनेपर राग नष्ट हो जाता है। यह विवेक मनुष्यमें विशेषरूपसे है। आवश्यकता केवल इस विवेकको महत्त्व देकर जाग्रत् करनेकी है। अतः साधकको (विवेक जाग्रत् करके) विशेषरूपसे रागको ही मिटाना चाहिये।तत्त्वको जाननेकी इच्छा रखनेवाला साधक भी अगर गुण (पदार्थ) और कर्म-(क्रिया-) से अपना कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं मानता, तो वह भी गुण-विभाग और कर्म-विभागको तत्त्वसे जान लेता है। चाहे गुणविभाग और कर्मविभागको तत्त्वसे जाने, चाहे 'स्वयं'-(चेतन-स्वरूप-) को तत्त्वसे जाने, दोनोंका परिणाम एक ही होगा।

परंतु जो ज्ञानी है हे महाबाहो वह तत्त्ववेत्ता किसका तत्त्ववेत्ता गुणकर्मविभागका अर्थात् गुणविभाग और कर्मविभागके तत्त्वको जाननेवाला ज्ञानी इन्द्रियादिरूप गुण ही विषयरूप गुणोंमें बर्त रहे हैं आत्मा नहीं बर्तता ऐसे मानकर आसक्त नहीं होता। उन कर्मोंमें प्रीति नहीं करता।

Having stated the ignorant person's attachment to actions, the absence of such attachment in the knowledgeable person is described by 'yaḥ punaḥ' (who again), etc.

'Tattvavit' is derived as 'one who knows the reality' (yāthārthyaṁ vetti). The word tu (but/on the other hand) indicates the superior distinction of the knowledgeable person compared to the ignorant. Introducing the second line of the verse with a question, he explains it, starting with 'kasya' (of what), etc.

The doubt arises that it is improper for the qualities (guṇas) themselves to abide in the qualities, since they are without qualities (nirguṇa); resolving this, he makes a distinction, saying 'guṇāḥ' (qualities), etc.

It is the operational causes and instruments (kārya-karaṇāḥ) themselves that are inclined towards the objects (viṣayas); the Self, however, is immutable (kūṭastha), and thus does not have such inclination. Knowing this, the 'tattvavit' (knower of reality) does not hold a strong conviction of doership in actions; this is the meaning.

'Tattvavit tu' (But the knower of reality). The word 'tu' is for indicating the distinction from the ignorant person. The knower of which reality? Regarding this, the commentary (Bhāṣya) says: 'guṇakarmavibhāgayoḥ' means the knower of the reality of the division of qualities and the division of actions. The meaning of this is: 'I am not the aggregate of cause and effect' is the division of the Self from the qualities, and 'These actions are not mine' is the division of the Self from the actions. He is the one who has realized the Self as separate from the qualities and actions.

Therefore, he is neither a soul deluded by ego nor attached to actions, which would lead him to think, 'I am the doer.' If the word 'vibhāga' (division) were absent, this meaning would not be obtained. The grammatical analysis should be understood as: 'vibhāgaśca vibhāgaśca vibhāgau' (division and division are two divisions); 'guṇakarmabhyo vibhāgau guṇakarmavibhāgau' (divisions from qualities and actions are guṇakarmavibhāgas); 'tayoḥ guṇakarmavibhāgayoḥ' (of those two guṇakarmavibhāgas).

By this, the meaning that he is the knower of the reality of the division of qualities and the division of actions is established. In this view, since the meaning could be conveyed merely by 'guṇakarmaṇoḥ' (of qualities and actions), the objection that the purpose of the word 'vibhāga' is questionable is answered.

The alternate explanation presented by the objector is: 'Guṇas' are the body, senses, and inner instrument, which are the substrata of ego; and 'karmāṇi' are their activities, which are the substrata of possessiveness ('mine-ness'). 'Guṇakarma' is a Dvandva compound treated as a single word. 'Vibhāga' is the unattached Self, whose nature is self-luminous consciousness, which is separate by illuminating all inert and changing things. The Dvandva compound is 'guṇakarma' (the inert) and 'vibhāga' (the conscious). He who knows the reality of those two (the illuminated and the illuminator, the inert and the conscious, the changing and the changeless) - this interpretation is questionable. This is because if 'guṇakarma' is taken as a single word, the word 'vibhāga' should precede it due to being 'alpac' (having fewer vowels) and 'abhyarhita' (more revered/important). In a situation where the meaning is obtained by the method stated in the Bhāṣya, it is improper to resort to anomalies like 'Chāndasatva' (Vedic irregularity) or the non-eternality of the nipāta rule. Moreover, setting aside the common meaning of 'vibhāga' and inventing an uncommon or forced meaning is inappropriate.

The final point (objection) is that the planning (yojanā) is: the tattvavit, believing 'guṇāḥ guṇeṣu vartante' (qualities operate among qualities), is not attached to the division of qualities and the division of actions. The 'division of guṇas' (Sattva, Rajas, Tamas) is their manifestation, divided as intellect, ego, jñānendriyas, karmendriyas, and objects, and he is not attached to this, not thinking 'This is I.' By this, the division of actions is also explained as necessary. Otherwise, the doership of actions like grasping, and the state of being subject to pain, etc., would fall upon the conscious Self. The idea is that the knower of the reality of the Self and the non-Self, while the ego, etc., and their actions (pride, etc.) are operating, knows the Self as separate from them, following through like a thread in flowers. He believes that the qualities (buddhi, eyes, etc.) operate in the qualities (objects like pain, form, etc.), and not the Self, and therefore he is not attached, meaning he is not bound by the thought, 'I am the aggregate of hands, etc., and this action of grasping, etc., is mine.' This interpretation is also debatable, because the word 'vibhāga' becomes redundant if the meaning is obtained merely by 'guṇakarmaṇoḥ na sajjate,' and the subsequent text 'tathā ca,' etc., does not align with his own explanation.

The core meaning is: The 'guṇas' (which are the senses/instruments) operate 'guṇeṣu' (in the objects/qualities of objects), and not the Self; believing this, he is not attached (saktiṁ), meaning he does not hold the conviction of doership. Hinting that 'you too should not hold the conviction of doership, believing that these great arms act in slaying the enemy, not I,' he addresses (Arjuna) as 'He Mahābāho' (O mighty-armed one).

He is the knower of the reality of the distinction of actions and the distinction of qualities.

The 'guṇas' (qualities) are the senses (indriyas), etc., and 'guṇeṣu' (in the qualities) are the objects (of the senses).

Having shown the conduct of the attached (ignorant person), the conduct of the unattached (wise person) is now shown by 'tattvavit,' etc. The Bhāṣya (by Śaṅkarācārya) for 'guṇakarmavibhāgayoḥ' is: the knower of the reality of the division of qualities and the division of actions. Śrīdhara Svāmī says: 'I am not of the nature of the qualities' is the division of the Self from the qualities, and 'I am not of the nature of actions' is the division of the Self from the actions; he knows the reality of both of these (divisions of quality and action).

Madhusūdana Sarasvatī says: 'Guṇas' are the body, senses, and inner instrument, which are the substrata of ego. 'Karmāṇi' are their activities, which are the substrata of possessiveness. 'Guṇakarma' is a Dvandva compound treated as a single word. 'Vibhāga' is the unattached Self, whose nature is self-luminous consciousness, which is separate by illuminating all inert things. The Dvandva compound is 'guṇakarma' (the inert) and 'vibhāga' (the non-inert). He who knows the reality of those two (the inert and the non-inert) believes that the 'guṇas' (which are the senses/instruments) operate 'guṇeṣu' (in the objects/qualities of objects), and thus is not attached, meaning he does not hold the conviction of doership. (The objection that) in the case of 'guṇavibhāgasya karmavibhāgasya ca tattvavit,' the word 'vibhāga' is redundant since 'guṇakarmaṇoḥ' would suffice, is raised. Alternatively, the planning is: the tattvavit, believing 'guṇāḥ guṇeṣu vartante,' is not attached to the division of qualities and the division of actions.

The 'division of guṇas' (Sattva, Rajas, Tamas) is their manifestation, divided as intellect, ego, jñānendriyas, karmendriyas, and objects, and he is not attached to this, not thinking 'This is I.' For example, in the body, he asserts 'I am fair'; in grasping with the hands, 'This was grasped by me'; in seeing with the eyes, 'This was seen by me' - thus he has pride due to the ego, and also thinks 'This is mine.' When the intellect is modified, he thinks 'I am happy,' and even when the intellect, etc., are grasped distinctly, he superimposes the Self-nature (pratyaktva) onto each one and thinks 'This is I' and 'This action is mine.' By this, the division of actions is also explained as necessary. Otherwise, the doership of actions like eating and the state of being subject to pain, etc., would fall upon the conscious Self.

This division of actions is also shown by the Shruti: 'andho maṇim avindat. tamanangulir āvayat. agrīvaḥ pratyamuñcat. tam ajihvo asascvat' (The blind one found the jewel. The fingerless one sewed it. The neckless one wore it. The tongueless one tasted it). Here, the 'andhaḥ' (blind), though devoid of light itself, the sense of sight, etc., 'avindat' (illuminates) the object like the jewel or form. 'Ananguliḥ' (fingerless), though inert like wood or a clod of earth and unable to act on its own, the hand, etc., 'āvayat' (grasps). 'Agrīvaḥ' (neckless) is the ego, which is lifeless like a severed head, and 'pratyamuñcat' (wears) it, meaning it thinks 'This was obtained by me.' 'Ajihvaḥ' (tongueless) is the element of Buddhi (intellect), which, being inert, is unable to illuminate the pleasure and pain residing in itself, like a cloth illuminating its own color, yet it experiences 'I am happy, I am miserable.' Thus, the knower of the reality of the Self and the non-Self, while the ego, etc., and their actions (pride, etc.) are operating, knows the Self as separate from them, following through like a thread in flowers. He believes that the 'guṇas' (buddhi, eyes, etc.) operate in the 'guṇas' (objects like pain, form, etc.), and not the Self, and therefore he is not attached, meaning he is not bound by the thought, 'I am the aggregate of hands, etc., and this action of grasping, etc., is mine.'

The 'Tattvavit' (knower of reality), regarding 'guṇakarmavibhāgayoḥ' (in the division of qualities and actions)—that is, in the division of the qualities such as Sattva, etc., and the division of their respective actions—believes that the 'guṇas' (qualities like Sattva, etc.) 'vartante' (operate) 'svaguṇeṣu' (in their own effects/activities), and thus

is not attached to the qualities and actions, thinking 'I am the doer.'

That the knowledgeable person does not think in that way is stated by 'tattvavit,' etc. 'I am not of the nature of the qualities' is the division of the Self from the qualities. 'These actions are not mine' is the division of the Self from the actions. He who knows the reality (tattvam) of those two (the division from qualities and the division from actions) is not attached, meaning he does not hold the conviction of doership.

The reason for this is: he believes that the 'guṇas' (senses/instruments) 'vartante' (operate) 'guṇeṣu' (in the objects/qualities of objects), and not 'I'.

'Lokasaṅgraha' (welfare of the world) means bringing people together, making them part of the same group by ensuring they share the same attitude towards one's own practice (Karma Yoga). 'Karmavāsanā' (latent impressions of action) are the particular aspects of previous merits and demerits that initiate subsequent merits and demerits, which are the cause of the memory capable of impelling subsequent bodies, or they are the residual impressions (saṁskāra) born from the specific experience of impelling previous bodies, like the impression from playing a musical instrument. 'Buddhibheda' (causing difference in intellect) means changing the intellect otherwise, and this (change) is shown in the current context by expressions like 'other than Karma Yoga,' etc. By the word 'yuktaḥ' (endowed), the intention is the Yoga of intellect characterized by non-attachment, mentioned earlier, for the person performing actions for 'Lokasaṅgraha,' in order to avoid unnecessary delay in achieving the desired end; hence 'buddhyā yuktaḥ' (endowed with intellect) is stated. The meaning of 'joṣayet' (should make them engage/propitiate) is 'should generate love/interest.' The root juṣī is in the sense of 'love' and 'service.' The syntactic connection is that he should 'joṣayet' (make them engage) in 'sarvakarmāṇi' (all actions) to 'karmasaṅginaḥ puruṣān' (persons attached to action).

The meaning of the four verses starting with 'prakṛteḥ' is given by 'Karmayogam,' etc. The meaning of the two verses is given in reverse order (first the ignorant, then the wise). In the third verse, non-deviation (avichālana) is taught by way of clarifying this. 'Karmayogāpekṣitam' means 'required as an auxiliary (iti kartavyatā) in Karma Yoga.'

When 'prakṛter guṇaiḥ' (by the qualities of nature) is said, 'sattvādibhiḥ' (by Sattva, etc.) is specified to exclude the natural qualities like sound, etc., which are irrelevant to the present topic, and to show the particular meaning established by the prominence of common usage, etc. 'Svānurūpam' (according to their nature) is stated, indicating the division of Sāttvika and other actions to be described later, which is suggested by the word denoting manner 'sarvaśaḥ' (in all ways). Since 'kartā' (doer) is an agent-noun formed with the suffix tṛj, there might arise the use of the possessive sixth case (Genitive); therefore, to avoid that fault and to remove the delusion of asserting 'I-ness' in the doership of actions, 'karmāṇi prati' (with respect to actions) is stated. If the suffix tṛn were intended, this would be the resulting statement.

Regarding 'ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā,' which has three similar parts and multiple meanings, the intended meaning here is analyzed as 'ahaṅkāreṇa,' etc. Here, mere 'I-feeling' (Aham-bhāva) is not stated, because that is included in the nature of the Self. Nor is the non-conscious substance called 'ahaṅkāra' (ego-stuff) meant, because even that acts by means of the delusion of body and Self, and it is improper to speak of it as the immediate cause. Nor is 'pride' meant, as it is not referred to as the cause of insult to the excellent, etc. Therefore, the delusion of the Self being the body is intended here by the word 'ahaṅkāra'; with this intent, it is said: 'ahaṅkāro nāma anahamarthe prakṛtāvaham abhimānaḥ' (Ego is the identification of 'I' with the non-self, i.e., Prakriti). By this, the etymology of the word 'ahaṅkāra' is shown with the suffix cvi in the sense of 'becoming that which was not.'

'Ajñātātmasvarūpaḥ' (one whose true nature is unknown) - the analysis is 'vimūḍha ātmā svarūpaṁ yasya sa vimūḍhātmā' (he whose true nature of the self is deluded is vimūḍhātmā). The sense is that the word vimūḍha here is in the same case (samanādhikaraṇa) as the object of delusion, as in 'diśo vimuhyeyuḥ' (the directions become deluded). In 'guṇakarmavibhāgayoḥ,' it is stated that the Locative (seventh case) denoting the subject matter is more appropriate than the Genitive which would relate to the secondary element: 'sattvādi guṇavibhāge tattat karmavibhāge ca' (in the division of Sattva and other qualities, and in the division of those respective actions). The word vibhāga (division), being after the Dwandva compound, is connected with each. Since qualities do not directly abide in qualities, and since the intention, according to the process explained by others, is the senses and their objects, etc., where there is an implied connection of the two terms, the word guṇa ending in the Locative case is used figuratively to denote the effects of the qualities; with this intention, it is said: 'svaguṇeṣu sveṣu kāryeṣu' (in its own qualities, i.e., in its own effects). The effects of the qualities will also be classified later. Alternatively, this is stated because of the prominence of the cause and the secondary nature of the effect in relation to it.

पूर्व श्लोक में अज्ञानी का जो लक्षण बताया गया है उसकी तुलना में ज्ञानी पुरुष की उससे ठीक विपरीत दृष्टि यहाँ श्रीकृष्ण बता रहे हैं। ज्ञानी के कर्मों में आसक्ति का कोई स्थान नहीं रहता क्योंकि वह जानता है कि मन ही बाह्यजगत् में कर्मरूप में व्यक्त होता है। यह विवेक उसमें सदा जागृत रहता हैं। एक बार इस सत्य को सम्यक् रूप से जान लेने पर ज्ञानी पुरुष यह समझ लेता है कि राग और द्वेष प्रवृत्ति या निवृत्ति सफलता और विफलता ये सब मन के लिए हैं। अत उसे फल में आसक्त होने का कोई प्रश्न ही नहीं रह जाता। इस प्रकार बन्धनों से मुक्त हुआ ज्ञानी पुरुष एक सच्चे खिलाड़ी के समान कार्य करता है जिसका आनन्द केवल खेल में ही हैं अंक जीतने में नहीं।इस स्थान पर श्रीकृष्ण का अर्जुन को महाबाहो कहकर सम्बोधित करना अर्थपूर्ण है। इस सम्बोधन से हमें धनुर्धारी के रूप में अर्जुन की अनेक उपलब्धियों का स्मरण होता है। यहाँ महाबाहो शब्द सूचित करता है कि सच्चा और वीर पुरुष वह नहीं जो किसी युद्ध में केवल कुछ शत्रुओं का ही वध करे बल्कि जो निरन्तर मन में चल रहे युद्ध का अथक सामना करते हुये आसक्तियों के ऊपर पूर्ण विजय प्राप्त करता है वही पुरुष वास्तविक वीर है। कर्म के युद्धक्षेत्र में परिस्थितियों पर आधिपत्य स्थापित करते हुये समस्त दिशाओं से आने वाले आसक्तियों के बाणों के समक्ष आत्मसमर्पण न करते हुये जोे कर्म करता है वही अपराजेय अमर वीर है। तत्पश्चात् वह निशस्त्र होकर र्मत्य वीरों के रथ में बैठकर प्रत्येक कुरुक्षेत्र में अनेक सेनाओं का मार्गदर्शन कर सकता है ऐसा ही पुरुष जो सत्य का ज्ञाता है तत्त्ववित कहलाता है।अब

The 'Tattvavit' (knower of reality),

who knows the division (separation) of qualities and actions, thinks, "Prakriti is performing, what has come to me?" (i.e., how am I involved?), and thus liberates the Self.

Since the two verses starting with 'prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni' are not quite clear, (Śrī Jayatīrtha) states their import, starting with 'vidvat,' etc. The connection (anvaya) is 'as appropriate' (yathāyogam), not 'in the order of the verses' (yathākramam). Saying 'karmabhedam' (distinction of actions) means the verse is elaborating it ('prapañcayati'). This is said because 'saktāḥ karmaṇi' (attached to action), etc., was already stated (in verse 3.25).

Showing the construction (anvaya) due to the intervening words, and since the word 'guṇa' has multiple meanings, the intended sense is stated with 'prakṛteḥ,' etc. By the word 'ādi' (etc.), the body and the mind are included.

How can substances like the senses, etc., be the 'guṇas' (qualities) of Prakriti? In answer, he says, 'prakṛtim,' etc. (Here 'guṇa' means) 'secondary' or 'subordinate' (guna-bhūtāny apradhānāni).

He interprets it in another way, starting with 'tat,' etc. This means 'and the effects of Prakriti.' Thus, the word 'guṇa' is established to mean 'effect' (kāryārtha).

The question is, since the Jīva (individual soul) is also a doer, how is it said 'ahaṅkāravimūḍhātmā kartā'ham iti manyate' (the soul deluded by ego thinks 'I am the doer')? In answer, he says, 'na hi,' etc. The phrase 'independently' (svātantryeṇa) is to be supplied here.

When the mutual division of the qualities and the actions was to be stated, why is the dual number used (vibhāgayoḥ) when the singular would suffice (vibhāge), and with what is this (dual) connected? Resolving this doubt by stating the meaning of the word 'vibhāga' (division), he says, 'karma,' etc.

Here, the distinction between actions and the senses, etc., is intended due to the difference in the related entities, namely, the Jīva, Īśvara, and Prakriti, which should be understood from other texts.

The intended meaning of the two words 'guṇā guṇeṣu' is stated as 'guṇāḥ,' etc.

The knowledgeable person does not think in that way; this is stated. 'Tattvavit' is 'one who knows the Tattva (reality/true nature).' The word tu indicates his superiority/distinction from the ignorant person.

The reality of what? In answer, he says, 'guṇakarmavibhāgayoḥ.' The 'guṇas' are the body, senses, and inner instrument, which are the substrata of ego; and the 'karmāṇi' are their activities, which are the substrata of possessiveness ('mine-ness'); thus 'guṇakarma' is a Dvandva compound treated as a single word. 'Vibhāga' is the unattached Self, whose nature is self-luminous consciousness, and which is separate by illuminating all inert and changing things. The Dvandva compound is 'guṇakarma' (the inert) and 'vibhāga' (the conscious).

He who knows the reality of those two (the inert and the conscious, the illuminated and the illuminator, the changing and the changeless) believes that the 'guṇas' (which are the senses/instruments) operate 'guṇeṣu' (in the objects/qualities of objects) because of their changeability, and not the changeless Self. Thus, he is not attached (saktiṁ), meaning he does not hold the conviction of doership like the non-knower of reality.

By addressing (Arjuna) as 'He Mahābāho' (O mighty-armed one), he suggests that, being endowed with the marks of a good man (satpuruṣa) according to physiognomy (sāmudrika śāstra), you ought not to be undiscriminating (ignorant) like ordinary people.

Alternatively, the meaning is: 'the knower of the reality of the division of qualities and the division of actions.' In this view, since the meaning could be conveyed merely by 'guṇakarmaṇoḥ,' the purpose of the word 'vibhāga' is questionable.

Having thus described the nature of the ignorant, He now describes the nature of the wise with the words 'tattvavit' (knower of truth), etc. O Mighty-armed one, having known, being capable of action and engaged in action, the knower of the truth of the division of qualities (gunas) and actions (karma), thinking 'the qualities act within the qualities,' does not become attached to actions.

Here is the purport: The qualities have indeed been manifested by the Lord for the purpose of His own enjoyment of the variegated personal sentiments (sva-rasa) distinguished by Sattvika and other states. For this very reason, Sattvika and other qualities have been described in the Vraja-vilasinis (Gopis) in the Sri Bhagavatam.

Action, however, is caused to be done for the purpose of holding the world together (loka-sangraha). And thus, the knower of the truth of this division, thinking 'the qualities situated in the jiva act within the qualities of the Lord; the Lord causes actions useful for that purpose to be done through the states of qualities for the enjoyment of His own sentiments; and He causes other actions to be done for the sake of the world,' does not become attached like the deluded one, thinking 'I alone am the doer, its fruit will be mine.' This is the purport.

But, O Mighty-armed one, the knower of truth—knower of the truth of what? Of the division of qualities (guna) and actions (karma), that is, the knower of the truth of the division of qualities and the division of actions.

Thinking that 'the qualities,' which are of the nature of instruments (senses), move among 'the qualities,' which are of the nature of objects, and not the Self—he does not become attached, that is, he does not form attachment.

He clearly shows the distinction between the wise and the ignorant who are performing actions, through the two verses beginning with 'Prakrteh' (verses 27 and 28). In the present context, the exposition of distinction is according to the 'Sankhya' method; thus, it is not an irrelevant topic.

To explain: In the Brahmavadi Sankhya (Theistic Sankhya), Purushottama (the Supreme Person) alone is the Creator, Enjoyer, and Substrate of all attributes of the universe; partially He becomes Akshara (Imperishable), Time, Nature (Prakriti), and the Soul (Purusha/Atman). 'He caused that very Self to fall into two pieces; (thence) arose husband and wife' (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.3)—according to this Shruti. Therein, 'Prakriti' is the doer (agent), and due to contact with her, the 'Purusha' is the enjoyer.

In reality, like a lotus leaf, he (Purusha) is not controlled by natural attributes; yet, regarding actions being performed by her qualities—by the transformed qualities, i.e., the senses, or by the qualities situated in the senses—he thinks 'I am the doer, I am the Purusha'; this is perverse intelligence. Actions are performed by the qualities, not by the Self alone. But the knower of the truth of the division does not become attached.

Through the reflection that 'the qualities situated in the senses are acting within the qualities of the objects,' the meaning of both Sankhya and Yoga is one and the same.

तत्त्ववित् the knower of the Truth? तु but? महाबाहो O mightyarmed? गुणकर्मविभागयोः of the divisions of alities and functions? गुणाः the alities (in the shape of senses)? गुणेषु amidst the alities (in the shape of objects)? वर्तन्ते remain? इति thus? मत्वा knowing? न not? सज्जते is attached.Commentary He who knows the truth that the Self is entirely distinct from the three Gunas and actions does not become attached to the actions. He who knows the truth about the classification of the Gunas and their respective functions understands that the alities as senseorgans move amidst the alities as senseobjects. Therefore he is not attached to the actions. He knows? I am Akarta -- I am not the doer. (Cf.XIV.23).

Tu, but, on the other hand; he who is a knower, tattva-vit, a knower of the facts;-knower of what kinds of facts?-guna-karma-vibhagayoh, about the varieties of the gunas and actions, i.e. a knower of the diversity of the gunas and the diversity of acitons; [Guna-vibhaga means the products of Prakrti which consists of the three gunas. They are the five subtle elements, mind, intellect, ego, five sensory organs, five motor organs and five objects (sound etc.) of the senses. Karma-vibhaga means the varieties of inter-actions among these.-Tr.] na sajjate, does not become attached; iti matva, thinking thus; 'Gunah, the gunas in the form of organs;-not the Self-vartante, rest (act); gunesu, on the gunus in the form of objects of the organs.'

But he who knows the truth about the divisions of the Gunas and their actions - namely, about the division among Sattva etc., on the one hand, and the divisions among their respective functionings on the other hand - it is he who, realising that Gunas, i.e., Sattva etc., are operating on their own products, is not attached to the actions of the Gunas, being convinced, 'I am not the doer.'