Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 29

व्याख्या--'प्रकृतेर्गुणसंमूढाः सज्जन्ते गुणकर्मसु'-- सत्त्व, रज और तम-- ये तीनों प्रकृतिजन्य गुण मनुष्यको बाँधनेवाले हैं। सत्त्वगुण सुख और ज्ञानकी आसक्तिसे रजोगुण कर्मकी आसक्तिसे, और तमोगुण प्रमाद, आलस्य तथा निद्रासे मनुष्यको बाँधता है (गीता 14। 6 8)। उपर्युक्त पदोंमें उन अज्ञानियोंका वर्णन है, जो प्रकृतिजन्य गुणोंसे अत्यन्त मोहित अर्थात् बँधे हुए हैं; परन्तु जिनका शास्त्रोंमें, शास्त्रविहित शुभकर्मोंमें तथा उन कर्मोंके फलोंमें श्रद्धा-विश्वास है। इसी अध्यायके पचीसवें-छब्बीसवें श्लोकोंमें ऐसे अज्ञानी पुरुषोंका 'सक्ताः अविद्वांसः' और 'कर्मसङ्गिनाम् अज्ञानाम्'नामसे वर्णन हुआ है। लौकिक और पारलौकिक भोगोंकी कामनाके कारण ये पुरुष पदार्थों और कर्मोंमें आसक्त रहते हैं। इस कराण इनसे ऊँचे उठनेकी बात समझ नहीं सकते। इसीलिये भगवान्ने इन्हें अज्ञानी कहा है।

परंतु जो प्रकृतिके गुणोंसे अत्यन्त मोहित हुए पुरुष हम अमुक फलके लिये यह कर्म करते हैं इस प्रकार गुणोंके कर्मोंमें आसक्त होते हैं। उन पूर्णरूपसे न समझनेवाले कर्मफलमात्रको ही देखनेवाले और कर्मोंमें आसक्त मन्दबुद्धि पुरुषोंको अच्छी प्रकार समस्त तत्त्वको समझनेवाला आत्मज्ञानी पुरुष स्वयं चलायमान न करे। अभिप्राय यह कि बुद्धिभेद करना ही उनको चलायमान करना है सो न करे।

Having introduced both the knower and the ignorant, He concludes that the knower should not create division in the intellect (buddhi-bheda) of the ignorant, with the words 'ye punah' (those again), etc.

Those who are deluded by the aforementioned qualities of Prakriti—meaning the modifications such as the body, etc.—and who consider those very things as the Self, become attached to the actions, i.e., the activities, of those very qualities (body, etc.); meaning, they form a firmer notion of 'mine-ness' (regarding them). This He states with 'Prakrteh', etc.

The one who himself knows the Self should not produce division in the intellect of those non-knowers of the Self; this He states with 'tan', etc.

Having explained the nature of the wise and the nature of the ignorant which are under discussion, He concludes that the wise should not create division in the intellect of the ignorant, with 'Prakrteh', etc. Those who are completely deluded by the 'qualities' of Prakriti—meaning Pradhana or Maya-shakti—which are modifications in the form of effects (body) and instruments (senses); and who, due to the non-manifestation of their own true nature, consider those very things to be the Self; they become attached to the actions, i.e., activities, of those very qualities. Those who form a firm notion of 'own-ness' (agency) thinking 'we act for the fruit'—such persons attached to action, who are therefore 'akrtsnavid' (knowers of the part/incomplete knowers), meaning devoid of Self-knowledge because they are dull-witted—the 'krtsnavit' (knower of the whole), meaning the knower of the Self, should not himself disturb. Since the scripture "By the seeing, hearing, thinking, and understanding of the Self, all this becomes known" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.4.5) establishes that the knower of the Self is the 'knower of the whole'. The meaning is he should not create division in their intellect.

The interpretation (by some) that 'by the qualities of Prakriti' means 'by Sattva, etc.' is contrary to the Bhashya (Commentary). And it is also inconsistent with one's own statement in 'Prakrteh kriyamanani gunaih' (Gita 3.27) where 'gunaih' was explained as 'by the senses'. By this, the other two interpretations—'in the qualities, i.e., senses, and their actions' and 'in the qualities related to Prakriti, i.e., body etc., and actions like moving etc.'—are also refuted. Because attachment to the body, senses, etc., is already stated by 'gunasammudhah' (deluded by the qualities). And there is no purpose in connecting the word 'Prakrteh' (of Prakriti) with 'gunakarmasu' (in qualities and actions).

'Deluded by the qualities of Prakriti', meaning by the senses, etc. For indeed, attachment to objects, etc., arises from identification with the senses, etc.

'Guna-karmasu' (in qualities and actions) means in objects and in actions. As stated in the definition by etymologists: "Sound etc., the senses etc., Sattva etc., auspicious things, and subordinate things are called 'Gunas'."

If 'Sattva etc.' were accepted (as the meaning of Guna here), then the statement 'guna gunesu' (qualities act within qualities) in verse 3.28 would become inappropriate.

Thus, having divided the actions of the attached and the unattached, and referencing the actions of the attached, He concludes the topic started with 'let him not create division in the intellect of the ignorant' (Gita 3.26), with the words 'Prakrteh', etc.

Those who are deluded by the 'qualities'—meaning by egoism, etc., superimposed upon themselves—(that is) those who are deluded by the superimposition of non-difference (identity); they become attached to the 'qualities of Prakriti'—meaning those related to Prakriti, such as the body, etc.—and to 'actions'—such as moving, etc. They become attached thinking, 'I am this Brahmana, this sacrifice etc. is mine alone.'

Those who, due to delusion, are 'akrtsnavid' (incomplete knowers)—meaning devoid of Self-knowledge—for indeed the knower of the Self is the 'krtsnavit' (knower of all); as per the scripture 'By the seeing, hearing, thinking, and understanding of the Self, indeed, all this becomes known.' Those 'dull-witted' ones—unable to grasp the meaning of the scriptures—the 'krtsnavit', i.e., the knower of the Self, should not disturb; he should not cause them to fall from their devotion to action.

Because there is the danger of them becoming fallen from both (action and knowledge). 'Deluded by the qualities of Prakriti, they become attached to the actions of the qualities'—this is the construction (interpretation) of the ancients.

The 'akrtsnavidah' (knowers of the part) are those who have set out for self-realization, but due to contact with Prakriti, are 'deluded' by the qualities of Prakriti regarding the real nature of the Self. They are attached only to 'guna-karmasu'—that is, to actions—and not to the nature of the Self as distinct from that (Prakriti). Therefore, they are not capable of Jnana Yoga; thus, their qualification is in Karma Yoga alone.

Such 'dull-witted' 'akrtsnavids', the 'krtsnavit' (knower of the whole) should not disturb by his own standing in Jnana Yoga. For those dull-witted ones, who follow the conduct of superior persons, seeing him (the wise) risen above Karma Yoga, might become unsettled in their minds regarding Karma Yoga. Therefore, the superior one, himself also remaining in Karma Yoga, contemplating the non-doership of the Self through the knowledge of the true nature of the Self, and showing that Karma Yoga alone is an independent means for the realization of the Self, should engage those 'akrtsnavid' dull-witted ones (in action); this is the meaning.

The superiority of this very Karma Yoga over Jnana Yoga, even for one qualified for Jnana Yoga, has already been stated. Therefore, the distinguished person should perform action alone for the sake of holding the world together.

The method of performing action by attributing doership to the qualities (gunas), through the description of the nature of the Self as distinct from Prakriti, has been stated. The contemplation of doership in the qualities is this: 'This doership is not impelled by the intrinsic nature of the Self, but is caused by connection with the qualities'—thus, through the discrimination between what is inherent (prapta) and what is not (aprapta), the contemplation that 'it is done by the qualities.'

Now, by describing the nature (of selves) as being the body of the Supreme Person and thus being controlled by Him, the duty to perform action is being stated by attributing (dedicating) the doership caused by the qualities to the Lord Purushottama, who is the Self of all.

He concludes what was stated as 'let him not create division in the intellect' with the words 'Prakrteh', etc.

Those who, being deluded by the 'qualities of Prakriti'—meaning Sattva, etc.—become attached to the 'qualities'—meaning the senses—and to their actions, thinking 'we act'; those 'akrtsnavids'—meaning the dull-witted—the 'krtsnavit'—meaning the all-knowing (wise person)—should not disturb.

'Qualities of Prakriti'—In this verse, attachment to prohibited things (sins) etc. is not intended; because in that case, the instruction 'not to disturb' (na vichalayet) would be inappropriate (as sinners should indeed be disturbed/corrected). Therefore, attachment to some means of attaining human goals (Purushartha) must be stated; and the Purushartha presented here is 'Self-realization'. And therein, for those qualified as 'akrtsnavid' (incomplete knowers), attachment to some means for that is intended—with this intention, it is stated 'The akrtsnavids have set out for self-realization,' etc.

'Deluded by egoism' (Gita 3.27)—since delusion regarding the Self is the topic at hand, the compound is simply 'deluded by the qualities' (gunaih sammudhah). Although the word 'guna' is subordinate, its construction with 'Prakrteh' (of Prakriti) is justifiable just like in 'Devadatta's Gurukula' (Devadatta's family of the Guru)—with this intention, the explanation 'deluded by the qualities of Prakriti regarding the Self as it really is' is given.

Regarding 'in the actions of the qualities' (gunakarmasu), to show that it culminates in Karma Yoga, it is stated 'in actions only'. The word 'eva' (only/indeed) is to express exclusion (of others). He states what is excluded by that implication with 'not that' (na tat). He states the reason for 'non-disturbance', which results from the mention of attachment to qualities and actions, with 'therefore they' (atas te). 'Na prabhavanti' means 'they are not capable'. To explain the context of the prohibition of disturbing them—who are described as 'mandan' (dull/slow)—he describes the process of disturbance with 'they indeed are dull' etc. Because they are themselves dull, they follow the conduct of superior persons. 'Dullness' (mandatvam) here implies 'incapability of deciding proper conduct by themselves'; or it implies 'smallness' characterized by impatience/instability, which is the cause of being disturbable resulting from being an 'akrtsnavid'. The lexicon Amara (3.6.94) states: 'Manda means deluded, small, inept, and unfortunate.'

He shows that 'let him not disturb' (na vichalayet) is a subsidiary part of the previously mentioned 'encouragement' (joshanam) with 'atah' (therefore). Anticipating the doubt that for one qualified for Jnana Yoga, remaining in Karma Yoga would be an acceptance of an inferior qualification, he says 'even those qualified for Jnana Yoga,' etc. Action should be performed even considering one's own duty alone; how much more so when one's own interest is combined with the welfare of others—with this intention, he says 'atah'.

To introduce the next verse, he picks up the mentioned portion with 'Prakriti' etc. According to the manner of the verse to be spoken (3.30), renunciation of all actions should be done in the Supreme Lord; but the statement here regarding the contemplation of doership in the gunas (qualities) is with the intention that 'even by that much, the discrimination between body and Self, etc., is accomplished.' 'Aropya' (superimposing) means 'having contemplated'.

Relying on this stage, the doctrine of Kapila and others (Sankhya), who grasp only the twigs (superficial aspects), has arisen; to exclude their view—and to remove the doubt 'how can doership characterized by knowledge, desire to do, and effort belong to insentient qualities?'—he says 'guneshu' (in the qualities), etc. 'Idam' refers to what will be said. 'This doership' means doership of merit and sin, etc.

For natural doership does not depart even in the liberated state, because it (natural doership) is not caused by contact with the qualities. 'Praptapraptavivekena' means by the determination of what is proper and improper through agreement and difference (anvaya-vyatireka). Here, interpreting the statement of non-doership as 'remaining without instruments' would be contradictory to the context; but interpreting it as 'subservient to contemplation' is consistent with the context—with this intention, the word 'anusandhana' (contemplation) is used. By this, the meaning of the section ' The Agent (Self), on account of the scripture having a purport' (Brahma Sutra 2.3.33) is indicated.

यद्यपि अनेक लोग सामान्य रूप से यह जानते हैं कि मन में स्थित वासनायें ही स्वयं को पूर्ण करने के लिये जगत् में कर्म बनकर व्यक्त होती हैं परन्तु केवल ज्ञानी पुरुष ही इस सत्य से पूर्णतया परिचित सब कर्मों में शांत और अनासक्त रहता है। बहुसंख्यक लोग तो पूर्णरूप से मोहित हुये अपनी ही वासनाओं के शिकार बने रहते हैं। वासनाओं से तरंगायित कर्मरूप जीवन के प्रवाह में बाधा उत्पन्न करने का प्रयत्न नहीं करना चाहिये। 26वें श्लोक में विद्वान् पुरुष को दी गयी सम्मति को ही यहाँ दूसरे शब्दों में उस पर बल देने के लिये दोहराया गया है।मन्दबुद्धि अज्ञानी एवं आसक्त पुरुषों को कर्म से विचलित न करके ज्ञानी को चाहिए कि उन्हें शनै शनै सही मार्ग पर लाने का प्रयत्न करे। इस प्रकार ज्ञानी पुरुष द्वारा सुनिर्दिष्ट प्रवाह संस्कृति के उद्यान को सींचता हुआ वैयत्तिक और सामाजिक उन्नति के स्वप्न को साकार कर सकेगा।कर्म में ही अधिकृत अज्ञानी पुरुष को अपने बन्धनों से मुक्त होने के लिये किस प्रकार कर्म करना चाहिए उत्तर है

'Of those attached to action'—this was stated (in verse 3.26). He displays that state of attachment to action with 'Prakrteh', etc.

In actions performed by the qualities related to Prakriti—i.e., Sattva, etc.—the deluded ones become attached (get submerged); due to the magnitude (power) of the qualities like Sattva.

Regarding 'deluded by the qualities of Prakriti', explaining the intended meaning of the word 'guna', he shows the grammatical analysis with 'Prakrteh', etc. Since the word 'guna' (quality) is invariably relative (dependent on a substance), there is no lack of syntactic capability (in the compound)—to demonstrate this, the repetition of 'Prakrteh' is given. Just as in 'Devadatta's Gurukula'. 'Because they are deluded by the qualities of Prakriti, they become attached to the gunas and actions'—thus the cause-and-effect relationship is intended here; otherwise, there would be the objection of redundancy. He explains that with 'Indriyadi' (senses etc.). 'Abhimana' (identification/pride) implies the delusion: 'These are mine alone, and are independently my instruments.' By saying 'Visayadi' (objects etc.), he shows that the word 'guna' here implies 'objects'. The word 'adi' (etc.) includes 'actions'. Attachment in objects means affection etc.; attachment in actions means the delusion of independence (agency).

The interpretation given by some (Shankara) as 'in the actions of the qualities' (gunanam karmasu) is incorrect; with this idea, he shows that this is a 'Dvandva' (copulative) compound with 'Guna' etc. Because by accepting the Dvandva compound, a 'greater meaning' is obtained. By this, the meaning 'objects etc.' is also supported.

How does the word 'guna' have the mentioned multiple meanings? To this, he says 'Sabdadya' (sound etc.). 'Nirucyate' (is defined)—this is the literal meaning of 'Nirukti'; those who go to/understand the 'Nirukti' are 'Niruktigah' (etymologists/lexicographers).

(Objection:) Let the word 'guna' have the power to express many meanings, still, it is proper to intend only one meaning here; otherwise, it contradicts the dictum 'not indeed by a single word...' (can multiple meanings be conveyed simultaneously). Indeed, the meaning a word reminds one of initially, that very meaning is present in the intellect, and it is proper that it reminds of the same meaning when uttered again; and thus, in all these contexts, 'Sattva etc.' alone should be grasped. (Reply:) Since it is possible to grasp 'sound etc.' which are of the nature of that (Sattva etc.), he says 'Sattvadi', etc.

The idea is that there is a contradiction in (one thing) being both the agent and the locus simultaneously (if Guna meant Sattva in 3.28, 'Gunas act in Gunas' would mean Sattva acts in Sattva, which is redundant). When the indication of senses etc., which are of the nature of that (Sattva), is available, the effort (to interpret it as Sattva) is futile. By this very inconsistency, the acceptance of the multiple meanings is justified.

Thus, having stated that 'the wise should not create division in the intellect of the ignorant' due to the similarity in the performance of action between the wise and the ignorant, He concludes with 'Prakrteh', etc. Those who are completely deluded by the 'qualities' of the previously mentioned Maya—meaning by the modifications in the form of effects such as the body, etc.—and who, due to the non-manifestation of their own nature, consider those very things to be the Self; they become attached to the actions, i.e., activities, of those very 'qualities'—meaning the body, senses, and inner instrument (antahkarana). Those who form a firmer notion of 'mine-ness' thinking 'we perform action for its fruit'—those attached to action, the 'akrtsnavids' (incomplete knowers)—meaning those who identify with the non-Self; the 'dull'—meaning those who have not attained qualification for knowledge due to impure minds—the 'krtsnavit'—meaning the knower of the perfect (whole) Self—should not himself disturb. The meaning is, he should not cause them to fall from their faith in action. However, those who are 'not dull'—meaning those with pure minds—they themselves move away (from action) due to the rise of discrimination, having attained qualification for knowledge; this is the intention.

The words 'krtsna' (whole) and 'akrtsna' (part/incomplete) have been explained by the Vartikakaras (specifically Sureshwaracharya) in accordance with the meaning of the Shruti, referring to the Self and the non-Self: "From sentences like 'Sat eva' (Existence alone), since the Reality is 'krtsna' (whole) because it is non-dual. How can the possibility of its opposite, the 'akrtsna' reality, exist? (Verse meaning:) That object, which even when seen, remains unseen (in some aspect), remains as a residue elsewhere (in ignorance). And that which may be seen even when (another part) is unseen, such is called 'akrtsna'."

Since the non-Self has parts and possesses manifold attributes, even when a single pot etc. qualified by a certain attribute or a certain part is known, that very thing remains unknown as qualified by other attributes or other parts; and indeed, things other than it, like a cloth etc., remain unknown. Also, even when that pot etc. is unknown, the cloth etc. may be known. Thus, since even in its knowledge, there is ignorance of its (other aspects) and of other things, and even in its ignorance, there is knowledge of other things, it is called 'akrtsna'. But 'krtsna' is the non-dual Self alone, because in Its knowledge, there is an absence of any residue—this is the meaning of the two verses.

(Objection:) If they act in that manner out of ignorance, then he should teach them, and not urge them (to act) in the same way again? To this, He says—'Prakrteh', etc.

Those deluded by the qualities of Prakriti, desiring the fruits of action, become attached to 'gunakarmasu'—meaning the attributes of the body—for the sake of fruit. Since they are 'akrtsnavid'—meaning they do not know the nature of the complete fruit which is the attainment of the Lord. The meaning is they know the fruit of action to be (only) worldly happiness.

Since they are attached there, their mind would not enter into the Lord; therefore, those 'dull'—meaning foolish—persons whose minds are excessively attached to fruit, the 'krtsnavit'—meaning the knower of the complete bliss in the form of attainment of the Lord—should not disturb; meaning, he should not urge them onto the path of the Lord. Or (it means), he should not move them even from that (current action). The idea is that through association with the wicked (unqualified/dull), he might bring about a change (deterioration) in his own state.

Those who are 'completely deluded'—i.e., bewildered—by the qualities of Prakriti become attached to the 'actions of the qualities'—i.e., gunakarmas—thinking 'we perform action for the fruit.'

Those attached to action, the 'akrtsnavids'—meaning those who see only the fruit of action—the 'dull'—meaning those of dull intellect—the 'krtsnavit'—meaning the knower of the Self—should not himself disturb. 'Disturbance' is indeed the creation of division in the intellect; he should not do that, this is the meaning.

(Question:) How then should action be performed by the ignorant seeker of liberation who is qualified for action? (This is stated next).

He confirms 'One should not create a division in understanding' (3.26)—with 'Prakriteh' (Of nature...) etc.

प्रकृतेः of nature? गुणसंमूढाः persons deluded by the Gunas? सज्जन्ते are attached? गुणकर्मसु in the functions of the alities? तान् those? अकृत्स्नविदः of imperfect knowledge? मन्दान् the foolish (thedullwitted)? कृत्स्नवित् man of perfect knowledge? न not? विचालयेत् should unsettle.Commentary The ignorant people do action with the expectation of fruits. The wise people who have the knowledge of the Self should not distract the faith or conviction or belief of such ignorant persons. If they unsettle their minds they will give up actions and become victims of inertia. They will lead an idle life. They should be encouraged by the wise to do actions of the Sakama type (actions for the sake of their fruits) in the beginning. The wise ones should turn the minds of the ignorant by giving them gradual instructions on Karma Yoga (Yoga of selfless? desireless action) and its benefits? viz.? purification of the heart that leads to the attainment of Selfrealisation.

Those again, guna-sammudhah, who are wholly deluded by the gunas; prakrteh, of Nature; sajjante, become attached; guna karmasu, to the activities of the gunas, thining, 'We do actions for results.' Krtsna-vit, the knower of the All, one who is himself a knower of the Self; na vicalayet, should not disturb; tan, those who are attached to actions; (who are) mandan, of dull intellect; akrtsnavidah, who do not know the All, who are all attention on the results of actions. Unsetting of beliefs is itself the disturbance. That he should not do. This is the idea.
Again, in what manner should duties be under-taken by a seeker after Liberation who is not enlightened, who is alified for actions (rites and duties)? As to this, the answer is being stated:

Those who 'do not know the whole truth' are those persons who are trying for the vision of the self but are deluded about the nature of the self, not knowing, on account of their involvement in Prakrti, that actions proceed from the Gunas of Prakrti. They are therefore attached to the actions of the Gunas - i.e., only to actions forming part of Karma Yoga. They are alified only for Karma Yoga. One who knows the complete truth should not, by himself remaining a practitioner of Jnana Yoga, unsettle those persons who are ignorant and who do not know the complete truth. Those, the ignorant, who tend to follow the behaviour of a great man, when they see him transcend Karma Yoga, will have their minds shaken from Karma Yoga. Thus, the great man, should himself remain established in Karma Yoga, while having the full knowledge of the true nature of the self and contemplating on the self as not being the agent. Thus he should demonstrate that Karma Yoga by itself is an autonomous means for the vision of the self. He should create in those who do not know the complete truth the love of Karma Yoga.
The superiority of this Karma Yoga over Jnana Yoga even for those who are alified for Jnana Yoga has already been stated. Therefore one who is a respected person of note should follow this Karma Yoga alone for the good of the world. The method of performing actions after attributing agency to the Gunas by discerning the nature of the self as different from Prakrti, has been taught. The agency of the self is not produced by the inherent nature of the self, but by its contact with the Gunas. Hence by discriminating between what is obtained by contact and not obtained when there is no contact, it has to be understood that this agency is due to the Gunas or Prakrti.
Now it is said that the agency of works, first attributed to Gunas, ultimately go to the Supreme Person who is the Self of all. It is done by discerning that the nature of the individual self is one of subservience to the Supreme Person, as they constitute His body: