Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 34

व्याख्या--'इन्द्रियस्येन्द्रियस्यार्थे रागद्वेषौ व्यवस्थितौ'--प्रत्येक इन्द्रियके प्रत्येक विषयमें राग-द्वेषको अलग-अलग स्थित बतानेके लिये यहाँ 'इन्द्रियस्य' पद दो बार प्रयुक्त हुआ है। तात्पर्य यह है कि प्रत्येक इन्द्रिय-(श्रोत्र, त्वचा, नेत्र, रसना और घ्राण-) के प्रत्येक विषय-(शब्द, स्पर्श, रूप, रस और गन्ध-) में अनुकूलता-प्रतिकूलताकी मान्यतासे मनुष्यके राग-द्वेष स्थित रहते हैं। इन्द्रियके विषयमें अनुकूलताका भाव होनेपर मनुष्यका उस विषयमें 'राग' हो जाता है और प्रतिकूलताका भाव होनेपर उस विषयमें 'द्वेष' हो जाता है।वास्तवमें देखा जाय तो राग-द्वेष इन्द्रियोंके विषयोंमें नहीं रहते। यदि विषयोंमें राग-द्वेष स्थित होते तो एक ही विषय सभीको समानरूपसे प्रिय अथवा अप्रिय लगता। परन्तु ऐसा होता नहीं; जैसे--वर्षा किसानको तो प्रिय लगती है, पर कुम्हारको अप्रिय। एक मनुष्यको भी कोई विषय सदा प्रिय या अप्रिय नहीं लगता; जैसे--ठंडी हवा गरमीमें अच्छी लगती है, पर सरदीमें बुरी। इस प्रकार सब विषय अपने अनुकूलता या प्रतिकूलताके भावसे ही प्रिय अथवा अप्रिय लगते हैं अर्थात् मनुष्य विषयोंमें अपना अनुकूल या प्रतिकूल भाव करके उनको अच्छा या बुरा मानकर राग-द्वेष कर लेता है। इसलिये भगवान्ने राग-द्वेषको प्रत्येक इन्द्रियके प्रत्येक विषयमें स्थित बताया है।
वास्तवमें राग-द्वेष माने हुए 'अहम्'-(मैं-पन-) में रहते हैं (टिप्पणी प0 176)। शरीरसे माना हुआ सम्बन्ध हीअहम् कहलाता है। अतः जबतक शरीरसे माना हुआ सम्बन्ध रहता है, तबतक उसमें रागद्वेष रहते हैं और वे ही राग-द्वेष, बुद्धि, मन, इन्द्रियों तथा इन्द्रियोंके विषयोंमें प्रतीत होते हैं। इसी अध्यायके सैंतीसवेंसे तैंतालीसवें श्लोकतक भगवान्ने इन्हीं राग-द्वेषको 'काम' और 'क्रोध' के नामसे कहा है। राग और द्वेषके ही स्थूलरूप काम और क्रोध हैं। चालीसवें श्लोकमें बताया है कि यह 'काम' इन्द्रियों, मन और बुद्धिमें रहता है। विषयोंकी तरह इनमें (इन्द्रियों, मन और बुद्धिमें) 'काम' की प्रतीति होनेके कारण ही भगवान्ने इनको 'काम' का निवास-स्थान बताया है। जैसे विषयोंमें राग-द्वेषकी प्रतीतिमात्र है, ऐसे ही इन्द्रियों, मन और बुद्धिमें भी रागद्वेषकी प्रतीतिमात्र है। ये इन्द्रियाँ मन और बुद्धि तो केवल कर्म करनेके करण (औजार) हैं। इनमें काम-क्रोध अथवा राग-द्वेष हैं ही कहाँ? इसके सिवाय दूसरे अध्यायके उनसठवें श्लोकमें भगवान् कहते हैं कि इन्द्रियोंके द्वारा विषयोंको ग्रहण न करनेवाले पुरुषके विषय तो निवृत्त हो जाते हैं, पर उनमें रहनेवाला उसका राग निवृत्त नहीं होता। यह राग परमात्माका साक्षात्कार होनेपर निवृत्त हो जाता है।
'तयोर्न वशमागच्छेत्' इन पदोंसे भगवान् साधकको आश्वासन देते हैं कि राग-द्वेषकी वृत्ति उत्पन्न होनेपर उसे साधन और साध्यसे कभी निराश नहीं होना चाहिये ,अपितु राग-द्वेषकी वृत्तिके वशीभूत होकर उसे किसी कार्यमें प्रवृत्त अथवा निवृत्त नहीं होना चाहिये। कर्मोंमें प्रवृत्ति या निवृत्ति शास्त्रके अनुसार ही होनी चाहिये (गीता 16।24)। यदि राग-द्वेषको लेकर ही साधककी कर्मोंमें प्रवृत्ति या निवृत्ति होती है तो इसका तात्पर्य यह होता है कि साधक राग-द्वेषके वशमें हो गया। रागपूर्वक प्रवृत्ति या निवृत्ति होनेसे 'राग' पुष्ट होता है और द्वेषपूर्वक प्रवृत्ति या निवृत्ति होनेसे 'द्वेष' पुष्ट होता है। इस प्रकार राग-द्वेष पुष्ट होनेके फलस्वरूप पतन ही होता है।जब साधक संसारका कार्य छोड़कर भजनमें लगता है, तब संसारकी अनेक अच्छी और बुरी स्फुरणाएँ उत्पन्न होने लगती हैं, जिनसे वह घबरा जाता है। यहाँ भगवान् साधकको मानो आश्वासन देते हैं कि उसे इन स्फुरणाओंसे घबराना नहीं चाहिये। इन स्फुरणाओंकी वास्तवमें सत्ता ही नहीं है; क्योंकि ये उत्पन्न होती हैं; और यह सिद्धान्त है कि उत्पन्न होनेवाली वस्तु नष्ट होनेवाली होती है। अतः विचारपूर्वक देखा जाय तो स्फुरणाएँ आ नहीं रही हैं, प्रत्युत जा रही हैं। कारण यह है कि संसारका कार्य करते समय अवकाश न मिलनेसे स्फुरणाएँ दबी रहती हैं और संसारका कार्य छोड़ते ही अवकाश मिलनेसे पुराने संस्कार स्फुरणाओंके रूपमें बाहर निकलने लगते हैं। अतः साधकको इन अच्छी या बुरी स्फुरणाओंसे भी राग-द्वेष नहीं करना चाहिये, प्रत्युत सावधानीपूर्वक इनकी उपेक्षा करते हुए स्वयं तटस्थ रहना चाहिये। इसी प्रकारउसे पदार्थ, व्यक्ति, विषय आदिमें भी राग-द्वेष नहीं करना चाहिये।

यदि सभी जीव अपनीअपनी प्रकृतिके अनुरूप ही चेष्टा करते हैं प्रकृतिसे रहित कोई है ही नहीं तब तो पुरुषके प्रयत्नकी आवश्यकता न रहनेसे विधिनिषेध बतलानेवाला शास्त्र निरर्थक होगा इसपर यह कहते हैं इन्द्रिय इन्द्रियके अर्थमें अर्थात् सभी इन्द्रियोंके शब्दादि विषयोंमें राग और द्वेष स्थित हैं अर्थात् इष्टमें राग और अनिष्टमें द्वेष ऐसे प्रत्येक इन्द्रियके विषयमें राग और द्वेष दोनों अवश्य रहते हैं। वहाँ पुरुषप्रयत्नकी और शास्त्रकी आवश्यकताका विषय इस प्रकार बतलाते हैं शास्त्रानुसार बर्तनेमें लगे हुए मनुष्यको चाहिये कि वह पहलेसे ही रागद्वेषके वशमें न हो। अभिप्राय यह कि मनुष्यकी जो प्रकृति है वह रागद्वेषपूर्वक ही अपने कार्यमें मनुष्यको नियुक्त करती है। तब स्वाभाविक ही स्वधर्मका त्याग और परधर्मका अनुष्ठान होता है। परंतु जब यह जीव प्रतिपक्षभावनासे रागद्वेषका संयम कर लेता है तब केवल शास्त्रदृष्टिवाला हो जाता है फिर यह प्रकृतिके वशमें नहीं रहता। इसलिये ( कहते हैं कि ) मनुष्यको रागद्वेषके वशमें नहीं होना चाहिये क्योंकि वे ( रागद्वेष ) ही इस जीवके परिपन्थी हैं अर्थात् चोरकी भाँति कल्याणमार्गमें विघ्न करनेवाले हैं।

Doubting that if the entire group of living beings acts under the control of Nature, then due to the absence of any scope for worldly or Vedic human effort (Purushakara), injunctions and prohibitions would be rendered meaningless—he raises the point with "Yadi" (If...).

[Objection:] "Surely, for one who has no 'Nature' (Prakriti), human effort is possible, so the meaningfulness of injunctions and prohibitions will apply to him?" He [Shankara] denies this with "Na cha". He removes the suspected defect with the verse "Idam" etc.

He shows that the repetition/distribution (vipsa - implied by 'Indriyasya Indriyasya') covers all instruments (senses). Regarding the word "Ishte" (desirable), he clarifies the contingency that attachment and aversion are not fixed regarding every object.

[Objection:] Even if one of the two (attachment or aversion) is inevitable regarding each object respectively, how is the previously stated defect—namely the absence of scope for human effort—to be resolved? Anticipating this, he says "Tatra" (There/In that case). He explains the section introduced by "Tayoh" (Of these two) as "Shastrartha" (The meaning of scripture). Anticipating the doubt "Since the creature is under the control of Nature, he cannot be a subject of commands," he says "Ya hi" (For indeed...).

It was stated that being under the control of Nature through attachment and aversion makes the abandonment of one's duty, etc., unavoidable. Now, he states that by the removal of attachment etc., through discriminating knowledge (Viveka-vijnana), the subjection to Nature can be eliminated through the scriptural vision—with "Yada" (When...).

Indeed, attachment and aversion are based on false knowledge; it should be noted that discriminating knowledge is their adversary because it opposes false knowledge. Having the intention that when attachment and aversion are removed by the removal of their root, the obstacle is destroyed and the goal is accomplished, he says "Tada" (Then...).

He shows that the word "Eva" (alone/indeed) excludes connection with anything else, with "Na" (Not...). He concludes the aforementioned injunction with "Tasmat" (Therefore...). He states the reason for that with "Yatah" (Since...). The reason implied by the word "Hi" is revealed as "Yatah," and it should be connected with the preceding word "Tat" (That).

He illustrates with an example that those two are indeed the waylayers (enemies) of the person, with "Shreyomargasya" (Of the path of the highest good...).

[Objection:] "Since the entire multitude of living beings is dependent on Nature, and thus there is no scope for human effort (Purushakara), the scriptures prescribing injunctions and prohibitions are rendered meaningless." Anticipating this doubt, He says "Indriyasya" etc. Regarding the "object" of all senses—i.e., sound and other sense-objects—attachment arises in the "desirable" and aversion in the "undesirable"; thus, attachment and aversion regarding each object are inevitable. "Tasmat" (Therefore)—one should not come under the control of those two; one should not act in subservience to them.

Here, this alone is stated to be the sphere of human effort and of scripture. To explain: Upon the contact of the sense and the object, knowledge of the object arises; then, due to false knowledge, attachment etc., regarding it arises; and Nature impels the person toward its own effect only by placing attachment etc. in the forefront; then, the performance of prohibited acts and the abandonment of prescribed duties occur. But when, through scriptural vision, the object is perceived correctly (as it really is) beforehand, then due to the removal of false knowledge, attachment etc. are removed. And due to the removal of the auxiliary cause, Nature is unable to impel [the person]. Therefore, right at the beginning, one should not come under the control of attachment and aversion through human effort.

And it should not be argued that "Engagement in human effort and scripture cannot be established at all because of the presence of Nature as an obstacle." This is because the Unseen (Adrishta/Fate) does not act as an obstacle without seen (visible) materials.

[Objection:] "By equal logic (Tulya-nyaya), the visible form of engagement in scripture etc., also depends on the Unseen; therefore, dependence on Nature has returned again." If this is said, then [the answer is]: The impression (Samskara) favorable to that [scriptural engagement] also exists in qualified persons like Brahmins; so there is no inconsistency.

[Objection:] "Then everything will happen solely from that [impression]; what is the use of scriptures devoted to injunctions, prohibitions, and liberation?" This should not be said. Because the necessity of seen materials for the Unseen has already been stated.

Thus, just as in the world, the sight of a desirable woman is the awakener of lust existing in the form of a latent impression, so too is the scripture [the awakener of spiritual impressions]. [Objection:] "What is the awakener for that which generates engagement in listening to the scripture?" If this is asked: Just as for Janaka, who went to a garden for sport, there was an accidental hearing of a sage's words; or as for one who came to a lecture hall for some other task and heard the words there; or as the words of some cultured person who has become a friend due to some worldly cause—understand it like this; enough of elaboration.

"Hi" (Because)—since those two, attachment and aversion, are "Paripanthinau" (waylayers) of this person—meaning creators of obstacles on the path of the highest good, like thieves on a road.

Even so, restraint should be practiced according to one's capacity. Even if there is no immediate benefit from restraint, [success] certainly occurs through intense effort—having this intent, He says "Indriyasya" etc.

For thus it has been stated: "This Samskara (impression) is powerful; even Brahma and others are under its control. Yet, it can be altered through intense effort."

"If this is so, then due to the lack of independence of the person, the scriptures prescribing injunctions and prohibitions are useless"—anticipating this doubt, He says "Indriyasya" etc.

The repetition "of the sense, of the sense" implies distribution (pertaining to each and every sense). In regard to the respective object of each sense—such as sound, etc., and speech, etc.—attachment in the favorable and aversion in the unfavorable are "Vyavasthita," meaning fixed or eternally connected. In that matter, the instruction of the scripture is "One should not come under their control." And the person has independence in practicing that.

"Hi" (Because)—those very attachment and aversion are the "Paripanthinau" (waylayers/enemies) of this living being, because they impel him through visible means. It is not the Lord, who follows Nature, who is his enemy; for [if He were], the fault of partiality etc. would apply to Him.

The sentiment is this: Just as a King, angry due to a crime committed yesterday involving the transgression of his command, sends his own soldiers to bind the criminal in chains etc.; yet that same King, propitiated by gifts and honor today, appoints him to the command of those very soldiers. Similarly, the Lord, following past actions, though binding the person through attachment etc., when propitiated by devotion and profound meditation performed by that very person in accordance with the scriptures of injunctions and prohibitions, appoints him to the conquest of attachment etc.

Therefore, the scriptures of injunctions and prohibitions are not meaningless, because the existence of the person's independence holds true. Nor is there partiality etc. in the Lord, because [His dispensation] is dependent on the actions of the living beings.

Regarding the object of the organs of knowledge like the ear (i.e., sound etc.), and regarding the object of the organs of action like speech (i.e., speaking etc.), "Raga" (attachment)—in the form of the desire to experience them, generated by ancient impressions (Vasanas)—is settled as unavoidable; and when that experience is obstructed, unavoidable "Dvesha" (aversion) is settled.

These two alone, having brought under their control even one who is striving for Jnana Yoga and has restrained all his senses, forcibly engage him in their own effects. And thereby, this person, turning away from the experience of the true nature of the Self, becomes ruined.

One should not come under the control of these two; one should not perish by falling under the sway of attachment and aversion at the commencement of Jnana Yoga. For those two, attachment and aversion, are his unconquerable enemies that obstruct the practice of Self-knowledge.

[Objection:] "If indeed a person's activity is entirely dependent on Nature in this way, then injunctions and prohibitions would become useless"—anticipating this doubt, He says "Indriyasya" etc. By the repetition (vipsa) "Indriyasya Indriyasya," "of each and every sense" is stated. "Arthe"—meaning in its respective object—attachment in the favorable and aversion in the unfavorable; thus attachment and aversion are "Vyavasthita," meaning inevitable.

And consequently, activity proceeds in accordance with them; this is the "Nature" of beings. Even so, "one should not come under the control of those two"—this is regulated by scripture. "Hi"—because for this seeker of liberation, those two are "Paripanthinau," meaning adversaries.

The sentiment is this: Having generated attachment and aversion through remembrance of objects etc., Nature forcibly impels the heedless person even into evil, like a deep current. Scripture, however, engages him even before that in the worship of the Supreme Lord etc., which acts as an obstruction to attachment and aversion regarding objects. Like one who has taken refuge in a boat before falling into a deep current, he does not meet with disaster.

With the intention that the intermediate operation in "Vasana (impression) being the cause of activity conforming to itself" is stated immediately after, he (Ramanuja) says "Prakrityanuyayitva..." (The manner of following nature...). The repetition "Indriyasya Indriyasya" is intended to include all senses—with this idea, the organs of knowledge and organs of action are cited. The word "Artha" here refers to objects. Since the goal to be accomplished is the object of operation, it is shown that speaking, etc., are also the meaning of the word "Artha" here. Regarding "Vyavasthitau"—the meaning of the prefix (vi) is explained as "Avarjaniya" (unavoidable). By the statement that "Vasana causes activity only through desire," it is also indicated that knowledge-vasana itself, in the guise of being the cause of action, is called action-vasana, and there is no other separate Vasana.

When it is said "Attachment and aversion are fixed in the object of each sense," a doubt might arise: "Just like attachment in objects like sound, does aversion also flow naturally (spontaneously)?" To remove this, he says "Tadanubhava" (When that experience is obstructed...). [Objection:] "What comes of that?" Anticipating this, and contemplating it by unifying it with "Sadrisham cheshtate" (Acts according to nature - 3.33), he states the purport with "Tau evam" (Those two thus...). Meaning: in the manner of following Vasana as described.

By "Niyamita-sarvendriyam" (one who has restrained all senses), restraint such as forcibly closing the eyes for a mere moment is implied. "Svakaryeshu"—means in the experiences of objects and in actions like speaking, taking, etc.

He recalls at this opportunity what was elaborated earlier from "Sangat sanjayate" (From attachment arises... 2.62) up to "Buddhinashat pranashyati" (...from destruction of intelligence he perishes 2.63), with "Tatashchayam" (And thereby this person...).

"One should not come under their control"—this is not merely a prohibition of attachment and aversion; for then, by propriety, it would become an injunction for a limb of Jnana Yoga. And that would be inconsistent with the context of the "unacceptability" (difficulty) of Jnana Yoga. Therefore, whatever phrasing suggests the unacceptability of Jnana Yoga should be accepted here—with this intention he says "Jnanayoga..." (At the commencement of Jnana Yoga...). The idea is: at the commencement of Karma Yoga, however, since activity is directed toward long-practiced congenial objects (in a righteous way), there is no forceful compulsion of attachment and aversion. "Agamya na vinashyet" (Coming under sway, he should not perish)—means he should avoid going under their control, which is the cause of destruction.

[Objection:] "How does destruction occur by going under their control?" Anticipating this, he introduces the fourth quarter (of the verse) with "Tau hi" (For they...). Having in mind the form that will be described in verses like "Kama esha krodha esha" (This is lust, this is anger - 3.37), it is said "Durjayau shatru" (Unconquerable enemies). He applies the quality of being "waylayers" (Paripanthinau) to the present subject with "Atmajnana..." ( obstructs the practice of Self-knowledge). The meaning is: they are situated like robbers on the royal highway to liberation.

पूर्व श्लोक में कहा गया था कि शास्त्राध्ययन करने वाला ज्ञानवान् पुरुष भी नैतिकता का उच्च जीवन जीने में अपने को असमर्थ पाता है क्योंकि उसकी कुछ निम्न स्तर की प्रवृत्तियाँ कभीकभी उससे अधिक शक्तिशाली सिद्ध होती हैं। सर्वत्र अनुपलब्ध औषधि का उपचार लिख देना रोग का निवारण करना नहीं कहलाता। दार्शनिक तत्त्ववेत्ता का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह केवल हमारे वर्तमान जीवन की दुर्बलताओं को ही नहीं दर्शाये बल्कि पूर्णत्व की स्थिति का ज्ञान कराकर उस साधन मार्ग को भी दिखाये जिससे हम दोषमुक्त होकर पूर्णस्वरूप में स्थित हो सकें। केवल ऐसा करके ही वह दार्शनिक तत्त्वविज्ञ पुरुष अपनी पीढ़ी को कृतार्थ कर सकता है।यह सत्य है कि प्रत्येक मनुष्य अपने स्वभावानुसार कार्य करता है परन्तु यह स्वभाव वह अपने कर्म एवं विचारों के द्वारा बनाता है और न कि किसी अन्य के कारण। अत यहाँ पुरुषार्थ के लिये अवसर है। उसी को यहाँ श्रीकृष्ण बता रहे हैं। प्रत्येक इन्द्रिय के विषय के प्रति प्रत्येक व्यक्ति के मन में राग अथवा द्वेष उत्पन्न होता है। शब्दस्पर्शादि इन्द्रियों के विषय स्वयं किसी भी प्रकार हमारे अन्तकरण में दुख या विक्षेप उत्पन्न नहीं कर सकते। विषयों के ग्रहण करके मन किसी के प्रति राग और किसी के प्रति द्वेष रखता है और मन के इन रागद्वेषों के कारण प्रिय या अप्रिय विषय के दर्शन अथवा प्राप्ति से मनुष्य को हर्ष या विषाद होता है। स्वयं रागद्वेष्ा को उत्पन्न करके मनुष्य का फिर प्रयत्न होता है प्रिय की प्राप्ति और अप्रिय का त्याग। विषयों के प्रति राग और द्वेष सदा परिवर्तित होते रहने के कारण वह सदा ही क्षुब्धचित्त बना रहता है। श्रीकृष्ण कहते हैं कि ये रागद्वेष ही लुटेरे हैं जो मन की शांति का हरण कर लेते हैं और जिनके कारण मनुष्य सच्चा जीवन नहीं जी पाता। वास्तव में यह दुख की बात है।वस्तुस्थिति को दर्शाकर भगवान् समस्त साधकों को उपदेश देते हैं कि मनुष्य को चाहिये कि वह इन दोनों के वश में न होवे।प्रत्यक्ष या अप्रत्यक्ष किसी भी रूप में बाह्य जगत् से पलायन करने का उपदेश गीता में कहीं पर भी नहीं मिलता। भगवान् का उपदेश तो यहाँ और अभी जीवन की उपलब्ध परिस्थितियों में शरीर मन और बुद्धि के माध्यम से सब अनुभवों को प्राप्त करते हुये जीने के लिये है। आग्रह केवल इस बात का है कि सभी परिस्थितियों में मनुष्य को मन आदि उपाधियों का स्वामी बनकर रहना चाहिये और न कि उनका दास बनकर। इस प्रकार के स्वामित्व को प्राप्त करने का उपाय राग और द्वेष से मुक्त हो जाना है।रागद्वेष से मुक्ति पाने के लिये मिथ्या अहंकार तथा तज्जनित अन्य प्रवृत्तियों को समाप्त करना चाहिये क्योंकि राग और द्वेष अहंकार से सम्बन्धित हैं। इसलिए अहंकाररहित कर्म करने पर वासनाओं का क्षय हो जाता है। वासनाओं से उत्पन्न होता है मन और वहीं पर अहंकार का खेल होता है। जैसेजैसे वासनायें क्षीण होती जाती हैं वैसेवैसे मन भी नष्ट हो जाता है। मन के नष्ट होने पर शुद्ध आत्मा का प्रतिबिम्ब रूप अहंकार भी नष्ट हो जाता है।भगवान् वासना क्षय का उपाय निम्न श्लोक में बताते हैं

"How then does bondage occur?" It is stated thus—"Indriyasya" (3.34) and "Shreyan" (3.35).

The transmigrating soul (Samsari) harbors attachment and aversion regarding every object, because due to delusion, he considers actions to be performed by the Self alone. Thus, even while performing activities like eating etc. equally, there is this distinction between the Knower (Jnani) and the Samsari.

This is our doctrine: for one who is completely free from attachment and performs his own duty (Swadharma), there is no bondage of the nature of merit and sin.

Indeed, Swadharma is inseparable from the heart and deeply rooted in one's natural inclination; no creature is born void of it; therefore, it cannot be abandoned.

He states the connection of the verse "Indriyasya" with "Tathapi" (Even so).

The sentiment is: anticipating the doubt that "If this is so (that nature is all-powerful), then the injunction 'In Me, all actions' (3.30) and the statement of its fruit would be useless."

Although, based on "Beings go to nature" (3.33), restraint appears ineffective, and this (present statement) is said to be contradictory to that; therefore, it is said "Nigrahat" (From restraint...).

Having the intention starting with "From restraint..." etc., He says "Tathapi" (Even so...) etc.—this is the construction. Here, he states the agreement of scripture with "Tatha hi" (For thus...).

Now (the question is) that upon the subjection of the entire class of living beings to Nature (sarvasya prāṇivargasya prakṛtivaśavartitve), due to the absence of the field for worldly and scriptural human effort (laukikavaidikapuruṣakāraviṣayābhāvāt), futility (ānarthakyaṃ) of injunctions and prohibitions (vidhiniṣedhānarthakyaṃ) results, and no one exists (na ca kaścid asti) who is devoid of Nature (prakṛtiśūnyaḥ) with respect to whom their meaningfulness (tadarthavattvaṃ) could occur, due to this reason (he states the next verse) – indriyasya indriyasya (of sense-organ, of sense-organ). By repetition (vīpsayā), in the object of all sense-organs (sarveṣām indriyāṇām arthe), in sound (śabde), touch (sparse), form (rūpe), taste (rase), and smell (gandhe), and similarly in the object of the action-sense-organs (karmendriviṣaye) too, in speech (vacana) etc., there is attachment (rāgaḥ) to what is favorable (anukūle) and even if prohibited by scripture (śāstraniṣiddhe 'pi), and aversion (dveṣaḥ) to what is unfavorable (pratikūle) and even if enjoined by scripture (śāstravihite 'pi) – thus attachment and aversion (rāgadveṣau) are established (vyavasthitau) with respect to the object of each sense-organ (pratīndriyārthaṃ), they are situated by the arrangement of favorability and unfavorability (ānukūlyaprātīkūlyavyavasthayā sthitau), and they do not occur everywhere without regulation (na tvaniyameṇa sarvatra tau bhavataḥ). There, the object of human effort (puruṣakārasya) and of scripture (śāstrasya) is this, that one should not fall under their sway (yat tayor vaśaṃ nāgacchet).

How (kathaṃ)? Ya hi puruṣasya prakṛtiḥ (The nature of a person), sā (that) promotes (pravartayati) the person in what is prohibited by scripture (śāstraniṣiddhe) like eating forbidden meat (kalañjabhakṣaṇa), etc., only by putting forward (puraskṛtyaiva) attachment (rāgaṃ) which is based upon (nibandhanam) the knowledge of being a means to the desired goal (iṣṭasādhanatvajñāna) accompanied by (sahakṛte) the absence of the knowledge of being connected with a powerful undesirable consequence (balavadanīṣṭānubandhitvajñānābhāva). And similarly, it restrains (nivartayati) from what is enjoined by scripture (śāstravihitād api), like Sandhyā worship (sandhyāvandanādeḥ), only by putting forward (puraskṛtyaiva) aversion (dveṣam) which is based upon (nibandhanam) the knowledge of being a means to the undesirable goal (aniṣṭasādhanatvajñāna) accompanied by (sahakṛtā) the absence of the knowledge of being a means to a powerful desirable consequence (balavadiṣṭasādhanatvajñānābhāva).

There, when what is prohibited (pratiṣiddhasya) is made known (jñāpite) by scripture (śāstreṇa) to be connected with a powerful undesirable consequence (balavadanīṣṭānubandhitve), due to the absence of the cooperating cause (sahakāryabhāvāt), the mere knowledge of being a means to a perceived desirable goal (kevalaṃ dṛṣṭeṣṭasādhanatājñānaṃ) is not capable of generating attachment (na rāgaṃ janayituṃ śaknoti) there, just as (iva) in the eating of food mixed with honey and poison (madhuviṣasaṃpṛktānnabhojana). Similarly, when what is enjoined (vihitasya) is made understood (bodhite) by scripture (śāstreṇa) to be connected with a powerful desirable consequence (balavadiṣṭānubandhitve), due to the absence of the cooperating cause (sahakāryabhāvāt), the mere knowledge of being a means to the undesirable goal (kevalam aniṣṭasādhanatvajñānaṃ) is not capable of generating aversion (na dveṣaṃ janayituṃ śaknoti) there, just as (iva) in eating (bhojanādā) etc. Tatas ca (And therefore) scripture (śāstraṃ), which is unobstructed (apratibaddham), promotes (pravartayati) the person (puruṣaṃ) in what is enjoined (vihite) and restrains (nivartayati) from what is prohibited (niṣiddhāc ca) – thus, due to the destruction (upamardāt) of natural attachment and aversion (svābhāvikarāgadveṣayoḥ) through the destruction of their cause (kāraṇopamardena) by the preponderance of scriptural discriminative knowledge (śāstrīyavivekavijñānaprābalyena), Nature (prakṛtiḥ) is not capable (na śaknoti) of promoting (pravartayituṃ) a person with scriptural insight (puruṣaṃ śāstradṛṣṭiṃ) in the opposite path (viparītamārge) – therefore, there is no occasion for the futility (na vaiyarthyaprasaṅgaḥ) of scripture (na śāstrasya) or (ca) human effort (puruṣakārasya).

One should not fall under the sway (vaśaṃ na āgacchet) of those (tayoḥ) attachment and aversion (rāgadveṣayoḥ), nor (na) should one act (pravarteta) or (vā) desist (nivarteta) subordinate to them (tad adhīnaḥ). But (kiṃtu), through knowledge opposite to them (tadvipakṣajñānena) which is scriptural (śāstrīya), and through the destruction of their cause (tatkāraṇavighaṭanadvārā), one should destroy them (tau nāśayet). Hi (Because) those two attachment and aversion (tau rāgadveṣau), caused by natural fault (svābhāvikadoṣaprayuktau), are obstructors (paripanthinau), enemies (śatrū) of this person (asya puruṣasya) who is seeking welfare (śreyorthinaḥ), they are hindrances to the path of welfare (śreyomārgasya vighnakartārau), like thieves (dasyū iva) to a traveller (pathikasya).

And this (idaṃ ca) is explained (vyākhyātam) in great detail (ativistareṇa) by describing (nirūpya) the tendency contrary to scripture due to natural attachment and aversion (svābhāvikarāgadveṣanimittaśāstraviparītapravṛttim) as Asura-nature (asuratvena) and the scriptural tendency (śāstrīyapravṛttiṃ ca) as Deva-nature (devatvena) in the Śruti (śrutau) like, 'Indeed, there were two kinds of descendants of Prajāpati, the Devas and the Asuras. Among them, the Devas were smaller, and the Asuras were larger. They competed in these worlds' (dvaye ha prājāpatyā devāścāsurāśca tataḥ kānīyasā eva devā jyāyasā asurāsta eṣu lokeṣvaspardhanta ityādi) – iti uparamyate (therefore, one rests, i.e., I stop here).

[Objection:] "Since Nature possesses power granted by the Lord, and restraint etc. are ineffective, how can the Jivas attached to the Supreme Person attain the goal?" To this, He says "Indriyasya indriyasya arthe".

"Indriyasya"—meaning "of the senses"; the singular number is used to denote the class (Jati). In the "Artha"—meaning objects like form etc.—of the sense, attachment and aversion are "Vyavasthita," meaning destined to exist. Attachment in the desirable, aversion in the undesirable; these two are inevitable.

One should not come under "Tayoh"—the control of those desirable and undesirable things, or of attachment and aversion. Because "Tau" (those two) are "Paripanthinau"—haters (enemies) and severers of the path for "Asya" (this person).

Here, the meaning is this: The Lord has granted Maya the power to delude those within her dominion and those related to her; therefore, if the Jiva, who is a portion of the Purusha, does not come under the control of senses etc., then delusion will not occur. It was to indicate Maya's power to delude those connected to it that the neuter gender "Bhutani" (beings) was used earlier (in verse 33). But here in the instruction, the masculine gender is used with "Asya" (of this one). Because attachment to objects etc. is itself the form of delusion, it is stated in Srimad Bhagavatam (3.31.35): "Infatuation and bondage do not befall this (soul) from attachment to the Self (or Atman) as they do to a man from attachment to women or from the company of those attached to them."

To the artha (object) of indriyasya indriyasya (each sense-organ), to the artha (object) of sarvendriyāṇām (all sense-organs), to the viṣaye (object) of śabdādi (sound, etc.) there is rāgaḥ (attachment) to the iṣṭe (desired) and dveṣaḥ (aversion) to the aniṣṭe (undesired) – ityevaṃ (thus) rāgadveṣau (attachment and aversion) are avaśyambhāvinau (inevitable) pratīndriyārthaṃ (towards the object of each sense-organ). Tatra (There), ayam (this) is ucyate (said to be) the viṣaya (subject matter) of puruṣakārasya (human effort) ca (and) śāstrārthasya (the meaning of scripture).

Pravṛttaḥ (The person engaged) in śāstrārthe (the meaning of scripture) na āgacchet (should not come) vaśaṃ (under the sway) of rāgadveṣayoḥ (attachment and aversion) pūrvam eva (beforehand). Yā hi puruṣasya prakṛtiḥ (For the Nature of a person), sā (that) pravartayati (promotes) the puruṣaṃ (person) in svakārye (its own work) rāgadveṣapuraḥsarā eva (only by having attachment and aversion preceding it). Tadā (Then) svadharmaparityāgaḥ (abandonment of one's own duty) ca (and) paradarmānuṣṭhānaṃ (performance of another's duty) bhavati (occurs).

Yadā punaḥ (When again) one niyamayati (controls) rāgadveṣau (attachment and aversion) by tatpratipakṣeṇa (their opposite (knowledge)), tadā (then) the puruṣaḥ (person) bhavati (becomes) śāstradṛṣṭiḥ eva (one whose vision is only scripture), na prakṛtivaśaḥ (not under the control of Nature).

Tasmāt (Therefore) na āgacchet (one should not come) vaśaṃ (under the sway) of tayoḥ (those) rāgadveṣayoḥ (attachment and aversion), yataḥ (because) tau hi (they both) are paripanthinau (obstructors) of asya puruṣasya (this person), vighnakartārau (hinderers) of the śreyomārgasya (path to welfare), pathī taskarau iva (like thieves on the path) ityarthaḥ (this is the meaning).

Tatra (In that regard), rāgadveṣaprayuktaḥ (impelled by attachment and aversion) manyate (thinks) śāstrārtham api anyathā (the meaning of scripture also differently), that paradarmaḥ api (another's duty too) is anuṣṭheyaḥ eva (certainly to be performed) dharmatvāt (because of being duty) iti (thus); tat asat (that is incorrect).

[Objection:] "If this is the case, then injunctions and prohibitions are futile because everyone is subject to Nature"—anticipating this doubt, He says "Indriyasya" etc.

Indeed, injunctions and prohibitions do not impel the Knower of Truth nor the extremely ignorant, because they are not the subjects thereof. Rather, they are for the intermediate one; only one who has a taste for sense-objects is the qualified aspirant.

For him, regarding every sense-object, attachment and aversion are "Vyavasthita"—established as self-created within. "Not being dependent on them" is the cause of success. Therefore, one should not come under their control.

For they are "Paripanthinau" (waylayers) of "Asya" (this person)—meaning they rob the wealth of discrimination, lead to the wrong path, and are forcibly destructive.

इन्द्रियस्य इन्द्रियस्य of each sense? अर्थे in the object? रागद्वेषौ attachment and aversion? व्यवस्थितौ seated? तयोः of these two? न not? वशम् sway? आगच्छेत् should come under? तौ these two? हि verily? अस्य his? परिपन्थिनौ foes.Commentary Each sense has got attraction for a pleasant object and aversion for a disagreeable object. If one can control these two currents? viz.? attachment and aversion? he will not come under the sway of these two currents. Here lies the scope for personal exertion or Purushartha. Nature which contains the sum total of ones Samskaras or the latent selfproductive impressions of the past actions of merit and demerit draws a man to its course through the two currents? attachment and aversion. If one can control these two currents? if he can rise above the sway of love and hate through discrimination and Vichara or right eniry? he can coner Nature and attain immortality and eternal bliss. He willl no longer be subject to his own nature now. One should always exert to free himself from attachment and aversion to the objects of the senses.

Raga-dvesau, attraction and repulsion, in the following manner-attraction towards desirable things, and repulsion against undesirable things; (vyavasthitau, are ordained,) are sure to occur, arthe, with regard to objects such as sound etc.; indriyasya indriyasya, of all the organs, with regard to each of the organs.
As to that, the scope of personal effort and scriptural purpose are being stated as follows: One who is engaged in the subject-matter of the scriptures should, in the very beginning, not come under the influence of love and hatred. For, that which is the nature of a person impels him to his actions, verily under the influence eof love and hatred. And then follow the rejection of one's own duty and the undertaking of somody else's duty. On the other hand, when a person controls love and hatred with the help of their opposites [Ignorance, the cause of love and hatred, has discrimination as its opposite.], then he becomes mindful only of the scriptural teachings; he ceases to be led by his nature.
Therefore, na agacchet, one should not come; vasam, under the sway; tayoh, of these two, of love and hatred; hi because; tau, they; are asya, his, this person's pari-panthinau, adversaries, who, like robbers, put obstacles on his way to Liberation. This is the meaning.
In this world, one impelled by love and hatred misinterprets even the teaching of the scriptures, and thinks that somody else's duty, too, has to be undertaken just because it is a duty! That is wrong:

An unavoidable attraction has been fixed for organs of sense like ear towards the objects like sound, and for organs of action like that of tongue towards their objects like tasty food. This longing is in the form of desire to experience these objects, which is caused by old subtle impressions. When their experience is thwarted, an unavoidable aversion is experienced. Thus, these two, attachment and aversion, bring under their control one who aspires to follow Jnana Yoga, and forcibly engage him in actions appropriate to them, in spite of his having established some sort of control over the senses.
Such an aspirant fails to get the experience of the self, and therefore becomes completely lost. So no one practising Jnana Yoga should come under the sway of attachment and aversion, which are ruinous. These two, attachment and aversion, are indeed his unconerable foes that deter him from the practice of Jnana Yoga.