Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 36

व्याख्या--'अथ केन प्रयुक्तोऽयं ৷৷. बलादिव नियोजितः-- यदुकुलमें 'वृष्णि' नामका एक वंश था। उसी वृष्णिवंशमें अवतार लेनेसे भगवान् श्रीकृष्णका एक नाम 'वार्ष्णेय' है। पूर्वश्लोकमें भगवान्ने स्वधर्म-पालनकी प्रशंसा की है। धर्म 'वर्ण' और 'कुल' का होता है; अतः अर्जुन भी कुल-(वंश-) के नामसे भगवान्को सम्बोधित करके प्रश्न करते हैं।विचारवान् पुरुष पाप नहीं करना चाहता; क्योंकि पापका परिणाम दुःख होता है और दुःखको कोई भी प्राणी नहीं चाहता।यहाँ अनिच्छन् पदका तात्पर्य भोग है संग्रहकी इच्छाका त्याग नहीं, प्रत्युत पाप करनेकी इच्छाका त्याग है। कारण कि भोग और संग्रहकी इच्छा ही समस्त पापोंका मूल है, जिसके न रहनेपर पाप होते ही नहीं।विचारशील मनुष्य पाप करना तो नहीं चाहता, पर भीतर सांसारिक भोग और संग्रहकी इच्छा रहनेसे वह करनेयोग्य कर्तव्य कर्म नहीं कर पाता और न करनेयोग्य पाप-कर्म कर बैठता है।अनिच्छन् पदकी प्रबलताको बतानेके लिये अर्जुन बलादिव नियोजितः पदोंको कहते हैं। तात्पर्य यह है कि पापवृत्तिके उत्पन्न होनेपर विचारशील पुरुष उस पापको जानता हुआ उससे सर्वथा दूर रहना चाहता है; फिर भी वह उस पापमें ऐसे लग जाता है, जैसे कोई उसको जबर्दस्ती पापमें लगा रहा हो। इससे ऐसा मालूम होता है कि पापमें लगानेवाला कोई बलवान् कारण है।पापोंमें प्रवृत्तिका मूल कारण है-- 'काम' अर्थात् सांसारिक सुख-भोग और संग्रहकी कामना। परन्तु इस कारणकी ओर दृष्टि न रहनेसे मनुष्यको यह पता नहीं चलता कि पाप करानेवाला कौन है वह यह समझता है कि मैं तो पापको जानता हुआ उससे निवृत्त होना चाहता हूँ पर मेरेको कोई बलपूर्वक पापमें प्रवृत्त करता है; जैसे दुर्योधनने कहा है-- जानामि धर्मं न च मे

अर्जुन बोला यद्यपि ध्यायतो विषयान् पुंसः रागद्वेषौ ह्यस्य परिपन्थिनौ इत्यादि प्रकरणोंमें अनर्थका मूल कारणबतलाया गया पर वह भिन्नभिन्न प्रकरणोंमें और अनिश्चितरूपसे कहा गया है। इसलिये वह अनर्थोंका कारण ठीक यही है। इस प्रकार निश्चयपूर्वक और संक्षेपसे जाननेमें आ जाय तो मैं उसके उच्छेदके लिये प्रयत्न करूँ इस विचारसे उसके जाननेकी इच्छा करता हुआ अर्जुन बोला हे वृष्णिकुलमें उत्पन्न हुए कृष्ण किस प्रधान कारणसे प्रयुक्त किया हुआ यह पुरुष स्वयं न चाहता हुआ भी राजासे प्रयुक्त किये हुए सेवककी तरह बलपूर्वक लगाया हुआसा पापकर्मका आचरण किया करता है। जिसको तू पूछता है सर्व अनर्थोंके कारणरूप उस वैरीके विषयमें सुन ( इस उद्देश्यसे ) भगवान् बोले आचार्य पहले भगवान् शब्दका अर्थ करते हैं। सम्पूर्ण ऐश्वर्य धर्म यश लक्ष्मी वैराग्य और मोक्ष इन छःका नाम भग है यह ऐश्वर्य आदि छहों गुण बिना प्रतिबन्धके सम्पूर्णतासे जिस वासुदेवमें सदा रहते हैं। तथा उत्पत्ति और प्रलयको भूतोंके आने और जानेको एवं विद्या और अविद्याको जो जानता है उसका नाम भगवान् है अतः उत्पत्ति आदि सब विषयोंको जो भलीभाँति जानते हैं वे वासुदेव भगवान् नामसे वाच्य हैं।

Since the root of evil was already stated earlier, a question arising from the desire to know it again is unjustifiable—anticipating this doubt, he [Shankara] says "Yadyapi" (Although...).

"Vikshiptam" means scattered in various places, that is, shown. "Anavadharitam" means because it is stated in many places and is variously construed by discrimination, desire, etc.

[Objection:] Surely the root of evil is to be removed; why is it desired to be known? To this, he says "Jnate hi" (For only when known...). "Kuryam" (I would make [effort])—"That knowledge is purposeful" is the implied remainder.

Taking the word "Atha" as signifying the commencement of a sentence, he explains the question sentence with "Atha" etc.

He states an illustration regarding being impelled into bad conduct by force even while unwilling, with "Rajneva" (Like by a King).

Since being engaged [in an act] depends on willingness, and anticipating that in the absence of that [willingness], it [the engagement] would not occur, he recalls what was said before with "Rajneva ityukta" (As stated 'like by a King').

In previous texts such as "While thinking of objects..." (Gita 2.62) and "Attachment and aversion are indeed his enemies" (Gita 3.34), the causes for the fall into Samsara were stated in detail by the Lord.

Desiring to know that in a concise and definite manner as "This is exactly it," Arjuna spoke. With the intention "For only when it is known, I would make an effort to destroy it," he says "Atha" (Now/Then).

By what agent acting as the cause, being impelled or instigated, does this person commit sin even if unwilling, as if engaged by force like a servant by a King? "Just as You, though Unborn, attained birth in the Vrishni clan being prayed to by some great devotee"—indicating such a parallel, he addresses Him as "Varshneya" (Descendant of Vrishni). Tell me that enemy; this is the meaning.

There santi (are) bahavaḥ (many) karmakāraṇāḥ (causes of action) such as anger (krodha) etc., and also desire (kāma).

Tatra (Among them), kaḥ (which one) is balavān (powerful), iti pṛcchati (he asks this) – atha (now, next) iti. The meaning of atha is arthāntaram (a different meaning), 'one should not come under the sway of those two (3.34)' iti (this) is praśnaprāpakam (that which leads to the question).

Believing in his own lack of independence, thinking "God, Dharma and Adharma, or attachment and aversion are the impellers of a person," Arjuna said: "Atha kena" (By what then...). By what—by one of these like God etc., or by another—being "Prayukta," meaning impelled, does this person commit "Papam," meaning evil/undesirable?

By the word "Anicchann" (unwilling), the impelling nature of attachment and aversion is refuted. For only when there is attachment, does desire exist. Therefore, due to the absence of desire, the absence of attachment is implied. If attachment is not the impeller, then Dharma and Adharma—which are the causes of the impressions (samskaras) that are the root of that (attachment)—are also not the impellers; and consequently, even God, who depends on them, is rejected [as the impeller]—thus all are objected to.

Therefore, that which is the principal impeller should be stated; this is the meaning.

"Baladiva niyojitah" means like one seized for forced labor (corvee).

Arjuna said:

"Atha" (Then)... By whom impelled does this person, who has engaged in Jnana Yoga, even though not desiring himself to experience sense-objects, commit sin in the form of experiencing sense-objects, as if engaged by force?

"One should not come under their control"—what was thus stated, considering that to be impossible, Arjuna said: "Atha kena" (By what then...).

One descended in the lineage of Vrishni is "Varshneya"; O Varshneya! Even though unwilling to commit sin, which is of the nature of disaster/evil, by whom "Prayukta"—meaning impelled—does this person commit sin?

Since a person is seen engaging in sin again even while restraining lust and anger by the power of discrimination, there must be some "other" impeller that is the root cause of even those two—this question is asked in this probability.

By verses like "Acts in accordance" (3.33), following one's Vasana (latent impression/nature) was stated. And Vasana instigates activity only through the desire of the sentient being. This being the case, for one who desires Jnana Yoga and—because it is opposed to that—does not desire sense-experience, how does Vasana become the cause of engagement in sense-experience? Thus, he asks "Atha kena" (By what then...).

Here, the reading by Yadavaprakasha, "Anicchamano'pi balad atadyaiva niyojitah" (Even unwilling, as if engaged by force having been beaten), is a corrupt reading.

The word "Atha" here signifies a question or implies totality.

The word "Ayam" (This [person]) refers back to the one indicated as "possessing knowledge" (in verse 3.33)—with this intention, it is stated [in the Bhashya]: "This person engaged in Jnana Yoga."

The implication of the word "Purusha" (person) is that he is sentient; therefore, he does not engage in action even due to Vasana without willingness.

Thinking that just as things moved by wind, water, etc., move even if unwilling, similarly here too there must be some forceful impeller, he says "Balat" (By force) etc.

To avoid the contradiction between the meaning understood from "As if engaged by force" and the question "By whom," the syntax is explained by rearranging the order [in the Bhashya].

Just as something engaged by the force of wind, water, etc., acts even if unwilling, so does this person act; in that regard, the meaning of the question is "Impelled by whom?"

धर्मशास्त्रों की परम्परा के अनुसार यहाँ अर्जुन विचाराधीन प्रकरण पर एक निश्चित प्रश्न पूछता है। इस प्रश्न से ही ज्ञात होता है कि अर्जुन अपनी प्रारम्भिक उन्माद् की स्थिति से बहुत कुछ बाहर आ गया था और अब उसने आत्मनिरीक्षण भी प्रारम्भ कर दिया था जिसके फलस्वरूप उसे अपने ही मन में कुछ ऐसे गुण अथवा शक्तियाँ कार्य कर रहीं अनुभव हुईं जो उसके उच्च गुणों की अभिव्यक्ति में बाधक बनकर उनके प्रभाव को ही नष्ट कर रहीं थीं। उसका प्रश्न ऐसे परिचित शब्दों में पूछा गया है कि लगता है मानो आज का कोई विद्यार्थी ही इस प्रश्न को पूछ रहा है।कोई भी मनुष्य ऐसा नहीं है जिसे कुछ मात्रा में ही सही अच्छे और बुरे का पुण्य और पाप का ज्ञान न हो। बुद्धि से प्रत्येक व्यक्ति जानता है कि पुण्य क्या है किन्तु जब कर्म करने का समय आता है तब पाप में ही उसकी प्रवृत्ति होती है। यह एक दुर्भाग्य पूर्ण विडम्बना है। स्वयं के आदर्श और वास्तविक आचरण में जो दूरी रहती है वह सभी आत्मनिरीक्षक विचारकों के लिये वास्तव में एक बड़ी समस्या बन जाती है।हमारे हृदय मे स्थित दैवी गुण व्यक्त होकर श्रेष्ठतर उपलब्धि प्राप्त करना चाहते हैं परन्तु पाशविक प्रवृत्तियां हमें प्रलोभित करके श्रेयमार्ग से दूर ले जाती हैं और हम निम्न स्तर के शारीरिक सुखों में ही रमण करते रहते हैं। अधिकांश समय यह सब हमारी अनिच्छा से ही होता रहता है। अर्जुन पूछता है मन में बैठे इस राक्षस का स्वरूप क्या है जो हममें स्थित दैवी गुणों को सुनियोजित ढंग से लूट ले जाता है वृष्णि वंश में जन्म होने से श्रीकृष्ण का नाम वार्ष्णेय था। इस प्रश्न का उत्तर देते हुए

"Atha" etc. The question is: knowing sin to be sin, how does a person still engage in it?

The intent in raising this question is this:

If one's own duty (Svadharma) is unabandonable because it is inseparable from one's own heart, then how does the practice of unrighteousness (Adharma) occur among these [people]? (Implicitly) it is asked: What is this thing named 'Svadharma' by which a creature is never void/empty?

Arjuna's question "Atha kena" (By what then...) is unjustifiable; for in "Tau hyasya paripanthinau" (Those two are his enemies - 3.34), the status of attachment and aversion as enemies has already been stated. Indeed, is there any "being an enemy of the person" for attachment etc. other than being the instigator of sin? [i.e., they are already known as causes of sin]. Therefore, he [the Bhashyakara/Commentator] states the intent of the question with "Bahavah" (Many...).

The word "Karana" (cause) [used in the Bhashya] is derived from the causal form of the root 'kri' with the suffix 'lyut' in the instrumental sense, and it exists in all three genders. This is seen in the Bhashya usage "Ayam anumanah" (This inference...). Or, it has the suffix 'yuch' in the instrumental sense by the rule nyasa-shrantho yuch (Panini 3.3.107). This is feminine. "Bahavah" (Many) [in the Bhashya] is also feminine here; because of the optional rule voto gunavachanat (Panini 4.1.44).

By "Karma," sin is intended here. [Objection:] Since only two were mentioned, how is the restatement "Many" justified? To this, he says "Krodhadayah" (Anger etc.). Previously, by the word "Dvesha" (aversion), the Lord implied pride, jealousy, etc., as well, because the "group of six enemies" (Ari-shadvarga) is well-known. Knowing exactly that, he [the commentator] restates it thus; this is the idea.

The meaning is: By the word 'Raga', lust (Kama) was stated by You, and by the word 'Dvesha', anger and the rest. [Objection:] What is the utility of this question in the present context? To this, he says "Atha" etc. It is indicated by [Arjuna] himself that this does not have a connection characterized by cause-and-effect relationship with the present context. By the word "Atha," it is indicated that this is a different topic.

[Objection:] Then an inconsistent question should not be asked? To this [the answer is]: Even in the absence of another [direct] connection, there is a contextual relevance (Prasangiki Sangati)—having this intent, he shows the context with "Tayoh" (Of those two...). The idea is that the question is indeed proper with the sentiment: "Even among these, I shall make a great effort against the one that is strongest."

Having removed the cause of engagement in desire-prompted (Kamya) and prohibited (Pratishiddha) actions, one follows the Lord's view; to ascertain that cause, the root of evil was stated earlier with "Of the man thinking of objects..." (Gita 2.62). And recently, it was stated in great detail with "Those deluded by the modes of nature..." (Gita 3.29), etc.

regarding that matter: Are all causes equally dominant, or is there only one main cause while the others are merely its auxiliaries? In the first case, there would be great effort involved in removing all of them individually. In the latter case, however, by rejecting just one, the goal would be accomplished. Therefore, tell me: By what cause "Prayukta"—meaning impelled—does this person, who does not follow Your view and is deluded in all knowledge, commit sin? [Sin] which binds one to disaster, comprising all desire-prompted actions initiated with attachment to fruit (like the Chitra sacrifice for cattle), acts that are means to kill enemies (like the Shyena sacrifice), and prohibited acts of many kinds (like eating Kalanja or poisoned meat)—even though he is unwilling to do so himself.

And he does not perform the duty taught by You, which is characterized by withdrawal (Nivritti) and connects one to the Supreme Goal, even though he desires to do so. And without subservience [to something else], this is not possible.

Therefore, that by which he is engaged as if by force—like a servant by a king—and performs such action even while knowing it to be contrary to Your view and connected with all disasters; tell me about that instigator of the path of disaster, so that knowing it, I may destroy it completely; this is the meaning.

"O Varshneya"—meaning "You who have descended out of compassion in the Vrishni lineage, which is the clan of my maternal grandfather"—by this address, he indicates, "I am the son of a Vrishni woman, I should not be neglected by You."

Now, the Lord is the Controller of the portions of the Purusha (the Jivas), and He teaches thus [for their welfare].

[However], Maya is said to delude some; so, engaged by whom does this person engage in sinful conduct? Arjuna, desiring to know, submits this (Arjuna said): "Atha kena" (By what then...), etc.

"Atha"—since the person (Purusha), due to his relationship with the Supreme Purusha, is unwilling [to commit sin]; O Varshneya—(You who appeared in a noble family for the propagation of the dharma of devotion); as if engaged by force, as if impelled by a presiding controller, by whom instigated does he "commit sin"—meaning, become possessed of a sinful state/movement and experience its fruit?

"Atha" (Now/Then), by what agent acting as a cause, being "Prayukta"—meaning impelled—like a servant by a king, does this "Purusha," meaning person, "Charati"—meaning commit or practice—sinful action, even though unwilling himself? O Varshneya—born in the Vrishni clan! "As if engaged by force"—the illustration stated is "like by a king."

"Listen about that enemy, the doer of all disasters, whom you are asking about"—thus the Lord spoke (The Blessed Lord Said).

Sin arises from the performance of another's duty, and merit from one's own duty—knowing this view, Partha (Arjuna), being in doubt, now asks with "Atha kena" (By what then...).

"One should not come under their control" (3.34)—this instruction is extremely impossible to follow due to a lack of independence, just as it is for a sick person.

Since there is a reversal in the performance of another's duty and one's own duty [in actual practice], there must indeed be some instigator in the commission of sin, even if it be natural (Prakrita); hence the question "By what...".

अथ now? केन by which? प्रयुक्तः impelled? अयम् this? पापम् sin? चरति does? पूरुषः man? अनिच्छन् not wishing? अपि even? वार्ष्णेय O Varshneya? बलात् by force? इव as it were? नियोजितः constrained.Commentary Varshneya is one born in the family of the Vrishnis? a name of Krishna.

Atha, now then; varsneya, O scion of the Vrsni dynasty; being prayuktah, impelled; kena, by what acting as the cause; as a servant is by a king, does ayam, this; purusah, man; carati, commit; papam, sin, a sinful act; api, even; anicchan, against his wish, though not himself willing; niyojitah, being constrained; balat, by force; iva, as it were-as if by a king, which illustration has already been given?
The Lord (Bhaga-van) said: 'You hear about that enemy, the source of all evil, of which you ask-.'
'Bhaga is said to consist of all kinds of majesty, virtue, fame, beauty, detachment as well as Liberation [Liberation stands for its cause, Illumination.], (V.P.6.5.74). That Vasudeva, in whom reside for ever, unimpeded and in their fullness, the six alities of majesty etc. and who has the knowledge of such subjects as creation etc., is called Bhaga-van. 'He is spoken of as Bhaga-van who is aware of creation and dissolution, gain and loss, [Gain and loss stand for future prosperity and adversity.] ignorance and Illumination of all beings' (ibid. 78).

Arjuna said Impelled by what does a man practising Jnana Yoga commit sin in the form of experiencing the objects of the senses, as if constrained by force, even against his own will not to experience the objects of the senses.