Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 4

व्याख्या-- 'न कर्मणामनारम्भान्नैष्कर्म्यं पुरुषोऽश्नुते'-- कर्मयोगमें कर्म करना अत्यन्त आवश्यक है। कारण कि निष्कामभावसे कर्म करनेपर ही कर्मयोगकी सिद्धि होती है (टिप्पणी प0 117)। यह सिद्धि मनुष्यको कर्म किये बिना नहीं मिल सकती।मनुष्यके अन्तःकरणमें कर्म करनेका जो वेग विद्यमान रहता है, उसे शान्त करनेके लिये कामनाका त्याग करके कर्तव्य-कर्म करना आवश्यक है। कामना रखकर कर्म करनेपर यह वेग मिटता नहीं, प्रत्युत बढ़ता है।

यह बात स्पष्ट प्रकट करनेकी इच्छासे कि ज्ञाननिष्ठाकी प्राप्तिमें साधन होनेके कारण कर्मनिष्ठा मोक्षरूप पुरुषार्थमें हेतु है स्वतन्त्र नहीं है और कर्मनिष्ठारूप उपायसे सिद्ध होनेवाली ज्ञाननिष्ठा अन्यकी अपेक्षा न रखकर स्वतन्त्र ही मुक्तिमें हेतु है भगवान् बोले कर्मोंका आरम्भ किये बिना अर्थात् यज्ञादि कर्म जो कि इस जन्म या जन्मान्तरमें किये जाते हैं और सञ्चित पापोंका नाश करनेके द्वारा अन्तःकरणकी शुद्धिमें कारण हैं एवं पापकर्मोंका नाश होनेपर मनुष्योंके ( अन्तःकरणमें ) ज्ञान प्रकट होता है इस स्मृतिके अनुसार जो अन्तःकरणकी शुद्धिमें कारण होनेसे ज्ञाननिष्ठाके भी हेतु हैं उन यज्ञादि कर्मोंका आरम्भ किये बिना मनुष्य निष्कर्मभावको कर्मशून्य स्थितिको अर्थात् जो निष्क्रिय आत्मस्वरूपमें स्थित होनारूप ज्ञानयोगसे प्राप्त होनेवाली निष्ठा है उसको नहीं पाता। पू0 कर्मोंका आरम्भ नहीं करनेसे निष्कर्मभावको प्राप्त नहीं होता इस कथनसे यह पाया जाता है कि इसके विपरीत करनेसे अर्थात् कर्मोंका आरम्भ करनेसे मनुष्य निष्कर्मभावको पाता है सो ( इसमें ) क्या कारण है कि कर्मोंका आरम्भ किये बिना मनुष्य निष्कर्मताको प्राप्त नहीं होता उ0 क्योंकि कर्मोंका आरम्भ ही निष्कर्मताकी प्राप्तिका उपाय है और उपायके बिना उपेयकी प्राप्ति हो नहीं सकती यह प्रसिद्ध ही है। निष्कर्मतारूप ज्ञानयोगका उपाय कर्मयोग है यह बात श्रुतिमें और यहाँ गीतामें भी प्रतिपादित है। श्रुतिमें प्रस्तुत ज्ञेयरूप आत्मलोकके जाननेका उपाय बतलाते हुए उस आत्माको बाह्मण वेदाध्ययन और यज्ञसे जाननेका इच्छा करते हैं इत्यादि वचनोंसे कर्मयोगको ज्ञानयोगका उपाय बतलाया है। तथा यहाँ ( गीताशास्त्रमें ) भी हे महाबाहो बिना कर्मयोगके संन्यास प्राप्त करना कठिन है योगी लोग आसक्ति छो़ड़कर अन्तःकरणकी शुद्धिके लिये कर्म किया करते हैं यज्ञ दान और तप बुद्धिमानोंको पवित्र करनेवाले हैं इत्यादि वचनोंसे आगे प्रतिपादित करेंगे। यहाँ यह शंका होती है कि सब भूतोंको अभयदान देकर संन्यास ग्रहण करे इत्यादि वचनोंमें कर्तव्यकर्मोंके त्यागद्वारा भी निष्कर्मताकी प्राप्ति दिखलायी है और लोकमें भी कर्मोंका आरम्भ न करनेसे निष्कर्मताका प्राप्त होना अत्यन्त प्रसिद्ध है। फिर निष्कर्मता चाहनेवालेको कर्मोंके आरम्भसे क्या प्रयोजन इसपर कहते हैं केवल संन्याससे अर्थात् बिना ज्ञानके केवल कर्मपरित्यागमात्रसे मनुष्य निष्कर्मतारूप सिद्धिको अर्थात् ज्ञानयोगसे होनेंवाली स्थितको नहीं पाता।

Why did the Lord ignore what was stated in "Jyayasi chet" regarding the superiority of Buddhi? To this, he (Shankara) says "Yadarjunena". Moreover, the Lord intends qualification for Knowledge-steadfastness only for Sannyasis (Renunciates), otherwise it would contradict His statement about the division (of paths). Thus, he states the meaning established by the force of that statement of division with "Tasyashcheti". (Objection) Then, in accordance with the statement of division, Arjuna also would have qualification only for Knowledge-steadfastness preceded by Renunciation? (Reply) No, he says "Mam cheti". The word "cha" (and) implies "even while accepting the superiority of Buddhi."

The connection is: The Lord spoke addressing Arjuna. Adhering to the other's (opponent/Arjuna's) idea that attainment of Knowledge could happen through Hearing (Shravana) etc. even without actions, he qualifies it with "Karmeti". If, based on the statement of division, there is non-combination (asamucchaya) of both Knowledge and Action, then both should be causes of the human goal independently; otherwise, Knowledge, like Action, would not achieve the human goal independently? Anticipating this doubt, he states a different relationship with "Athaveti". (Objection) Then Knowledge-steadfastness, being a "steadfastness" just like Action-steadfastness, would not be an independent cause of the human goal, and thus "Combination" (Samuccaya) would be established? Anticipating this, he says "Jnananishtha tviti".

Indeed, when knowledge of the reality of a rope arises, it is not seen to depend on any auxiliary for the accomplishment of the fruit (removing fear). Similarly, this (Self-knowledge) too, once arisen, does not depend on anything else for Liberation; this he says with "Anyeti".

Anticipating that the word "Karma" here might refer to the object being produced (the result), as in the Sruti "Whose karma this is...", he explains it as "Kriyanam" (of actions/rites). And he divides those actions as obligatory (Nitya) and occasional (Naimittika) with "Yajnadinam".

(Objection) If actions performed in this very birth are the cause of Knowledge through the purification of the intellect, then how does Knowledge arise for Brahmacharis (who don't perform Agnihotra)? Or if actions performed in past lives are the cause, then householders' actions in this life would not be causes of Knowledge? Anticipating this, he shows the lack of a strict rule with "Iheti" (In this life or previous). (Objection) These (actions) do not cause purification of Sattva immediately due to the obstacle of accumulated sins? Anticipating this, he says "Upatteti". (Objection) Then, for those who are fulfilled/successful by that much alone (purification), how can it be a cause for Knowledge-steadfastness? To this he says "Tatkaranatveneti" (By being the cause of that Knowledge).

He states the proof for actions being the cause of Knowledge through purification of the mind with "Jnanamiti". He excludes the meaning of "Anarambha" as "Commencement" (which would mean non-commencement of results) which is contrary to the context, by saying "Ananushthanat" (By non-performance). Does "Naishkarmya" mean the "knowledge of karma" of a person without karma (Sannyasi)? He explains it as "Nishkarmeti". He distinguishes it from the mere state of absence of action with "Jnanayogeneti" (By the Yoga of Knowledge). He excludes it being dependent on means with "Nishkriyeti" (State of actionless Self).

Considering that the negative statement ("Not by non-performance...") culminates in a positive connection—to support the contextual meaning that Knowledge-steadfastness obtained through the means of action-performance is the independent cause of the human goal—he explains "Karmanam". He explains the converse of that with "Tesham". He asks for the reason for the stated meaning with "Kasmaditi". He states the desired reason with "Uchyata iti".

(Objection) Even if it (Action) is a means, why is Naishkarmya not achieved in its absence? Anticipating this, he says "Nahiti". He cites Sruti and Smriti as evidence for Karma-yoga being the means to Jnana-yoga with "Karmayogeti". He reveals the "Means-End" relationship propounded in Sruti with "Shrutaviti". And whatever has been proven in the Gita scripture regarding Karma-yoga being the means to Jnana-yoga, he now cites with "Ihapi cheti".

Having explained the first half "Na karmanam...", he raises a doubt to explain the second half with "Nanviti". By the word "Adi" (etc.), Sruti passages like "Peaceful, self-controlled..." and "Renunciates of pure mind through the yoga of renunciation" are grasped. He aligns popular understanding with that very point with "Loke cheti". And it is implied: "It is well known that 'From whatever one withdraws, from that one is liberated' and 'Without withdrawing from everything, one does not know even an atom of sorrow'." He states the meaning established by both worldly and Vedic fame with "Atashcheti". There, introducing the second half as the answer, he explains "Ata aheti".

He states the meaning of the word "Eva" (Only) with "Kevalat". He clarifies that very thing with "Karmeti" (By mere renunciation of action). Dragging the negative particle "Na" (Not) to the stated meaning, he shows the connection with the verb with "Na prapnoti" (Does not attain).

Seeing Arjuna, who had said "Why then do you engage me in terrible action, O Keshava," who was distressed in mind, and who believed "Action should not be done," He (the Lord) says "Na" (Not) etc.

Or alternatively, intending to speak clearly that: implied by the singular word "Nishtha" (in verse 3), Action-steadfastness is the means to the human goal by being the cause of attaining Knowledge-steadfastness; and Knowledge-steadfastness—whose nature is obtained through the means of Action-steadfastness—is the cause of the human goal quite independently. He begins with "Na" etc.

"Karmanam" (of actions) — By the Sruti "Brahmanas desire to know Him by the study of Vedas, by sacrifices, by charity, by austerity..." and by the Smriti "Knowledge arises for men upon the destruction of sinful karma; just as in a clear mirror surface, one sees the self in the self," and by the Nyaya (logic/aphorism) "And there is expectation of all, because of the scripture on sacrifices etc." — [it is established that actions are prescribed as means to Knowledge through mind-purification]. By the "non-performance" (akaranat) of these prescribed actions, a person does not attain (na ashnute) "Naishkarmya"—meaning the Steadfastness in Jnana Yoga which is characterized by the absence of action. But he attains it by their "commencement" (performance); this is the meaning.

(Objection) In passages like "Having given fearlessness to all beings, one should practice Naishkarmya," the attainment of Naishkarmya is heard even from the renunciation of obligatory duties; therefore, for one desiring that, what is the need for the commencement of action? If this is asked, He says "Na" (Nor).

"Na cha sannyasanat" — One does not attain "Perfection" (Siddhi)—characterized by Naishkarmya—by mere renunciation of action devoid of Knowledge. This is the meaning.

And for this reason also 'I shall engage [you]'—[He] says 'Na karmanam' etc. By the non-commencement of actions like war etc., 'Naishkarmya'—actionlessness—[meaning] 'it is attained by the abandonment of desire-prompted actions'—[i.e.,] liberation, one does not attain. Knowledge alone is the means to that, and not the non-performance of action—this is the meaning.

Why? Because of being a 'Purusha'. Is not the Jiva always conjoined with a gross or subtle body ('Pura')? If liberation were by non-performance of action, [it would belong] to immobile beings [too]. And liberation does not occur due to the absence of action in non-performance, because of the existence of infinite actions performed in every birth. Nor are all experienced; for in one body one performs many actions. And of those, each single one results in many births; some [are like that]. And there, experiencing single actions, one attains human birth indeed by the remainder. And therefore, since actions result in many bodies, there is no end. And that is said in the Brahma Purana: 'Living beyond fourteen [years], a man by rule, or a woman even [living] not less than ten, acquires a human body. The Samsara of living beings beyond fourteen [years] is without beginning. Therefore, O great sage, without knowing the Supreme God, what hope of liberation is there?'

If Samsara were with beginning, there would be non-attainment of that (body/birth) due to the absence of previous karma. However, non-bindingness happens only by desirelessness. And that will be said—'Unpleasant, pleasant' (18.12).

Objection: Liberation is declared due to the absence of fruit of desireless action. In the Manu Smriti: 'Desireless [action], preceded by knowledge, is called 'Nivritta' here. But performing the 'Nivritta', one attains the eternal Brahman.' Therefore, because of resemblance to that, it happens even in non-performance—to this [He] says 'Na cha' etc. Sannyasa is the abandonment of desire-prompted actions. Because 'Of desire-prompted actions...' (18.2) will be said. From desireless actions, through the purification of the inner instrument, liberation happens through knowledge.

And that is said in the Bhagavata: 'Dispassion is born in the heart of one whose being is purified by actions.' And knowledge is spoken of only for the dispassionate—'For him, to grasp the truth directly, even excellent words were not sufficient; for whom the happiness of household life would not be inferred as rejectable by itself through interpretation in a dream' (Bhag. 5.11.3). But not due to absence of fruit [or] absence of action. Therefore, abandonment of action alone is not the means to liberation.

The ascetic order, however, is for the sake of purity and for the sake of pleasing the Lord. For indeed, impurity is generally [the state] of householders etc. due to engagement in other actions. And for the impure, there is no knowledge; for thus is the Shruti: 'Not the unpeaceful, not the uncollected' (Katha 2.23). And in the ascetic order, the pleasure of the Lord is great. For thus [He] says in the Narayana-ashtakshara-kalpa: 'The fourth stage of asceticism, however, is the initiation very pleasing to Me.'

Those holding office (cosmic administrators), however, are capable of purity in that very way. And that itself is the great pleasure of the Lord. And that is said in the Padma Purana: 'Of the primal kings like the Devas, though engaged in great activity and enjoyers, that enjoyment moves for Vishnu; [it is] exceedingly pleasing to Hari.'

He states the relationship of subsidiary and principal (anga-angibhava) between these two types (paths) with "Na karmanam". By the non-commencement—non-performance—of actions like Yajna (sacrifice) etc., one does not attain "Naishkarmya"—meaning steadfastness in Knowledge (Jnana-nishtha). Because by the Sruti "They desire to know by sacrifice" (vividishanti yajnena), actions like sacrifice are ordained as auxiliary to Knowledge (Vidya).

(Objection) Since the desiderative suffix (san) is dominant here, it is understood that actions are auxiliary to the desire to know (vividisha). Therefore, when the desire to know is achieved through sacrifice etc., "Naishkarmya" in the form of Renunciation (Pravrajya) alone should be accepted here as the means to Knowledge-steadfastness, as per the Sruti "Desiring this very world, monks renounce." (Reply) No, because unlike the phrase "Knowledge which is the supreme perfection of Naishkarmya" (Gita 18.49), here the qualifying adjective "supreme" (parama) which would indicate that (renunciation) is absent.

(Objection) If we interpret it as "In the absence of mind-purification generated by Karma-yoga, one does not attain Perfection from mere renunciation," then the intended impossibility of the combination (Samuccaya) of the mutually contradictory Knowledge and Action is established; so why is "Nishtha" (Knowledge) taken as the meaning of the word "Naishkarmya"? (Reply) True. However, due to the remainder of the sentence "Actions are performed by the Gunas," the primary "Knowledge" caused by the state of being free from Gunas is indeed the meaning of the word "Naishkarmya" here, not Renunciation (Pravrajya). Even in "They desire to know by sacrifice," just as in "He desires to go by horse" or "He desires to kill with a sword," the instrumental word connects with the meaning of the verbal root (going/killing) alone; similarly, just as horses etc. are for going, it should be known that sacrifices etc. connect with "Knowing" (Vedana) itself (not just the desire).

As for the Sruti "Etameva" (Desiring this very world...), it proceeds with the intention of "Renunciation of the seeker" (Vividisha-sannyasa). Also, "Knowing this very Self, Brahmanas rise above the desire for sons, wealth, and worlds, and live the life of mendicants" (Brihadaranyaka 3.5.1)—thus "Renunciation of the Knower" (Vidvat-sannyasa), practiced by Yajnavalkya and others for the maturation of knowledge or the bliss of Jivanmukti, is also seen in the scriptures.

The insistence of the ancients that "Knowledge does not arise for a non-renunciate" refers to the renunciation of distracting actions, not merely to the wearing of ochre robes. For it is understood that Gargi, the Dharma-vyadha, Vasistha, and others attained knowledge even without being such (formal renunciates). So let that be.
The meaning of the first half is: For one whose mind is not purified by actions, who is of dull intellect and gripped by attachment and aversion, there is no attainment of "Naishkarmya" (Knowledge) through discrimination of Self and non-Self or through control of the mind.

(Objection) "Having given fearlessness to all beings, one should practice Naishkarmya"—thus success in Naishkarmya is mentioned in Smriti even from mere renunciation of action; so how is it said that Naishkarmya does not exist by non-commencement of actions? To this He says "Na cha" (Nor).

In the absence of mind-purification born of action, liberation (Siddhi) is not attained even from renunciation performed. The cited Smriti refers to renunciation preceded by mind-purification. For one gripped by attachment etc. is not capable of giving fearlessness to all beings with his whole self. Therefore, "Nor by mere renunciation" is rightly said.

A person does not attain "Naishkarmya"—meaning steadfastness in Knowledge (Jnana-nishtha)—merely by the non-commencement of scriptural actions. The meaning is: he does not attain that Knowledge-steadfastness which is preceded by the cessation of actions known as the activities of all the senses.

Nor does he attain it by the renunciation of scriptural action that has been commenced. Because "Perfection" (Siddhi)—which is steadfastness in the Self (Atma-nishtha)—belongs to (is the result of) action performed without desire for fruit and having the worship of the Supreme Person as its object; therefore, without that (action), one does not attain that (steadfastness). For actions that have desire for fruit and do not worship Govinda do not destroy the accumulation of infinite sins active from beginningless time; and without that, Steadfastness in the Self, preceded by the unperturbed state of the senses, is difficult to achieve.

He explains this very point (in the next verse).

Therefore, for the sake of complete purification of the mind, until the rise of Knowledge, actions appropriate to one's Varna and Ashrama must be performed. Otherwise, Knowledge does not arise due to the lack of mind-purification; thus He says "Na karmanam". By the non-commencement—non-performance—of actions, one does not attain (na ashnute) "Naishkarmya"—meaning Knowledge.

(Objection) "Desiring this very world, monks renounce..."—since there is Sruti stating that Renunciation is a limb of Liberation, Liberation will occur from Renunciation alone; what is the use of actions? Anticipating this doubt, He said "Na cha" (Nor). Nor does one attain (samadhigacchati) "Siddhi"—Liberation—from mere "renunciation" performed without mind-purification and devoid of Knowledge.

"Nanu" (Objection)—indeed, the desire for liberation alone impels a person even in Karma Yoga; if that has arisen, then why does it not impel him in the immediate (direct) Jnana Yoga? This doubt is refuted by the verse "Na karmanam"—this [the Bhashya] states with "Sarvasya" etc.

By "Laukikasya" (of the worldly one), being situated within the world of Samsara, having senses agitated by objects is intended. "Sahasaiva" (suddenly)—meaning, without having performed Karma Yoga. To make known that the prohibition relates to another subject, the word "Shastriya" (scriptural) is [used].

If the word "Naishkarmya" were to mean non-performance etc., there would be faults like the lack of distinction in the thing to be achieved (sadhya-avishesha). Therefore, "Nishkarma" [means] one from whom Karma Yoga has departed, one whose Karma Yoga has concluded, [i.e.,] one steadfast in Knowledge—this is the meaning. Its state is "Naishkarmya"—with this intention, [he] says "Jnananishtham".

Regarding the word "Sannyasana" (renunciation) also, its connection is with "Karmanam" (of actions) alone; and because the nature of renunciation relates to what has been commenced; and because of that very reason, having in mind Savyasachi's (Arjuna's) incident of desire to leave the battle, [he] says "Na cha arabdhasya" (nor of the commenced).

Although the connection with the word "Naishkarmya" is possible, [he] reveals the purport of the designation by the word "Siddhi" again—with "Yatah" etc.

Combining non-commencement and renunciation, [he] says "Atas tena vina" (Therefore, without that). In the absence of action which is the cause, how can the effect be?—this is the sentiment.

The status of the fifth case (ablative) as denoting 'cause' is to be construed with the negation or with the respective object of negation. In the former part, the sentence meaning is that in the non-commencement of Karma Yoga, there would be non-attainment of Jnana Yoga; in the latter part, however, whatever is intended [by the opponent] that "perfection in Jnana Yoga is merely by the abandonment of Karma Yoga", that is improper; for that [Knowledge] is generated by that [Action] alone—this is the purport.

Therefore, having in mind both these functions of the sentence, [he] states the intended meaning of the verse—with "Anabhisamhita". The connection of "Karmabhih" (by actions) is with "Anaradhita" (unworshipped). By this, "Those men who have not worshipped Govinda are partakers of misery" etc. is reminded. In the absence of action with fruit un-aimed at, there is absence of the pleasure of the Supreme Person which is the means to the Highest Good; and from the absence of that, there is non-cessation of the accumulation of sins; and by that, the non-removal of mental impurities consisting of Rajas and Tamas; and from that, the long life of faults like attachment and aversion; and while those are living, there is no peace of the agitation of the senses; and while those are agitated by external objects, there is no steadfastness in the inner reality; thus, one desiring to practice Jnananishtha by the abandonment of such action is like one desiring to construct the seventh floor of a seven-storied gate-tower first—this is ridiculous; this is the sentiment.

अपने आत्मस्वरूप की दृष्टि से प्रत्येक व्यक्ति परिपूर्ण है। इस पूर्णत्व के अज्ञान के कारण हमारी बुद्धि में अनेक इच्छायें सुख को पाने के लिये उत्पन्न होती हैं। यह सब जानते हैं कि हम केवल उन्हीं वस्तुओं की इच्छा करते हैं जो पहले से हमारे पास पूर्ण रूप में अथवा पर्याप्त मात्रा में नहीं होतीं। जैसी इच्छायें वैसी ही विचार वृत्तियाँ मन में उठती हैं। मन में उठने वाली ये वृत्तियाँ विक्षेप कहलाती हैं। प्रत्येक क्षण इन वृत्तियों के गुणधर्म इच्छाओं के अनुरूप ही होते हैं। ये विचार ही शरीर के स्तर पर बाह्य जगत् में मनुष्य के कर्म के रूप में व्यक्त होते हैं। इस प्रकार अविद्या जनित इच्छा विक्षेप और कर्म की श्रृंंखला में हम बँधे पड़े हुए हैं।इस पर और अधिक गहराई से विचार करने पर ज्ञात होगा कि वास्तव में यह सब भिन्नभिन्न न होकर एक आत्म अज्ञान के ही अनेक रूप हैं। यह अज्ञान बुद्धि मन और शरीर के स्तर पर क्रमश इच्छा विचार और कर्म के रूप में व्यक्त होता है। अत स्वाभाविक है कि यदि परम तत्त्व की परिभाषा अज्ञान के परे का अनुभव है तो यह भी सत्य है कि इच्छा शून्य या विचार शून्य या कर्म शून्य स्थिति ही आत्मस्वरूप है। कर्मशून्यत्व को यहाँ नैर्ष्कम्य कहा है।इस प्रकार विचार करने से ज्ञात होता है कि नैर्ष्कम्य का वास्तविक अर्थ पूर्णत्व है। अत भगवान् कहते हैं कि कर्मों के संन्यास मात्र से नैर्ष्कम्य सिद्धि नहीं मिलती। जीवनसंघर्षों से पलायन व्यक्ति के विकास के सर्वोच्च लक्ष्य की प्राप्ति का मार्ग नहीं है। अर्जुन का विचार रणभूमि से पलायन करने का था और इसीलिए उसे वैदिक संस्कृति के सम्यक् ज्ञान की पुन शिक्षा देना आवश्यक था। भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण द्वारा दिव्य गीतोपदेश का यही प्रयोजन भी था।कर्मयोग से अन्तकरण शुद्धि और तत्पश्चात् ज्ञानयोग से आत्मानुभूति संक्षेप में यह है आत्मविकास की साधना जिसका संकेत इस श्लोक में किया गया है। इसलिए हिन्दू धर्म पर लिखने वाले सभी महान् लेखक इस श्लोक को प्राय उद्धृत करते हैं।ज्ञान के बिना केवल कर्मसंन्यास से ही नैर्ष्कम्य अथवा पूर्णत्व क्यों नहीं प्राप्त होता कारण यह है कि

Tatha hi — It is indeed so, as stated in "Na karmanam" etc. "Na hi" etc. Knowledge is not devoid of action, and action endowed with skill is not devoid of knowledge; thus, Knowledge and Action are one and the same reality.

And so it has been said: "There is no knowledge without action, nor action without knowledge. The Teacher (Acharya) who is accomplished in both Knowledge and Action is the destroyer of the bonds (pasha) of the bound soul (pashu)."

Therefore, action inherent within knowledge is unavoidable. Because, being indeed helpless (or under control of nature), one inevitably does something, since body, speech, and mind are of the nature of vibration (parispanda).

"Na karmanam" (Not by [non-performance of] actions) etc. That liberation is achievable by action is being stated—to refute this misunderstanding, he says "Itashcha" (and for this reason also) etc. In war etc. suitable to one's own Varna and Ashrama—this is the remainder (implied context). Previously, because of being an 'adhikari' (qualified aspirant), "action must be done by you" was said; now what other reason is being stated? Therefore, he explains "Karmanam" etc.

This is the intention: One saying "actions should not be done" should be asked: Is it thinking that knowledge is not the means to liberation, but rather non-action alone is [the means], that actions are abandoned? Or [thinking] knowledge is the means to liberation, but "the living being is bound by action" (Mahabharata 12.241.7) etc., thinking that actions are obstacles to that? Even in the first case, is this said relying merely on liberation being expressible by the word "Naishkarmya" (actionlessness)? Or relying on the logic that action alone is the seed of Samsara (which is of the form of action-doer-result), and in non-action, due to the absence of the seed, Samsara will not exist? The refutation of the first [view] is "Na karmanam". Because the word "Naishkarmya" can be explained otherwise too, it is not the first [view], this is the meaning. Then what? On this he says "Jnanameva" (Knowledge alone).

Having objected to what was said, he answers "Kuta" (Why/How). Accepting a different meaning for the word "Naishkarmya", what is the reason for refuting that non-performance of action is the means to liberation? This is the meaning. How is this a cause? Thus he explains "Sarvada" (Always). To include Pralaya (dissolution) also, "gross or subtle" was said. Still, how is it a cause? On this, he says "Yadi" (If). The word "Syat" (would be) connects with the preceding and succeeding. "Of immovable objects" is an indication of the unqualified. And so, in beginningless Samsara, due to the possibility of an unqualified body, there would be the contingency of liberation [for them], so even now the visible [being] would not have manhood (human status), this is the idea.

In refuting the second [view] also, he states the purport of this very meaning "Na cha" (And not). Because of the absence of action, there is absence of the seed of Samsara. Here "Naishkarmya" is a name for liberation only, not a translation of another proof. Why does it not happen? Therefore, here too, intending the reason "because of being a Purusha (human)", he says "Prati". Meaning, done in birth after birth. Because as a human in beginningless Samsara, infinite qualified births are possible. Because of the existence of infinite actions done there. What happens merely by non-action today? This is the meaning.

Objection: Actions done in previous bodies are experienced (exhausted) in subsequent bodies, so how is there existence of infinite actions? On this he says "Na cha". Why not? On this he says "Ekasmin" (In one). The word "Hi" is for reason. Let many be experienced, what is the fault? On this he says "Tani cha" (And those). The connection is "Tani cha kanichit" (And those are some). "Ekaikani" means one by one (each). Objection: Even those of that kind are exhausted by unqualified births? On this he says "Tatra cha" (And there). "Bhunjan" means experiencing in those actions. "Sheshena" means by the remainder of karma. And in human life non-action is impossible, he says "Tatashcha" (And therefore). Non-completion of actions by enjoyment is the remainder. This was said merely as a possibility, not [that it is] proven? On this he says "Tachchoktam" (And that is said).

From fourteen years. The analysis is "Anuno dashako yasya" (He whose decade is not deficient). By interchange of short and long vowels, "Chaturdashordhvajivini" is an adjective for the woman. "Samsarashcha" (And Samsara) is the demonstration of the infinity of actions. Therefore, because exhaustion by enjoyment is impossible.

"Avitva" means "aviditva" (not knowing). By the word Purusha, the beginningless connection with the body is stated; that is unproven? On this he says "Yadi". "Atatprapti" means non-attainment of accidental Samsara would occur; therefore manhood is established.

Objection: Let there be infinite past actions, still why would binding [actions] be done by a wise person? For simply because infinite past sins exist, they are not done today? On this he says "Abandhakatvam tu" (But non-binding nature). Non-causality of bondage of actions happens only by desirelessness etc., not by non-action, because [by non-action] sin (pratyavaya) alone is obtained, this is the meaning. Non-bindingness through desirelessness is approved by the Lord—with this intent he says "Tachcha".

Shankara, however, argued that "Non-action, being non-existent, does not generate existent sin (pratyavaya), because of the Shruti 'How can existence be born from non-existence?' (Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.2)." Bhaskara refuted that. The Shruti refers to substance (Dravya); a quality (Guna) arises even from non-existence. Both represent a gross view. For non-action is not 'non-existent', for if it were so, there would be the contingency of action. But it is an absence (Abhava), and that is a reality (Tattva) just like presence (Bhava), so how is it not a cause (akaran)? And if it is a cause for a quality, why can it not be a cause for a substance? Objection: Here material causality (upadanatva) is intended, and since non-action is of the form of absence, even if it has reality, the intended material causality is not applicable, so it does not generate sin—if this is the opinion? On this he says "Na hi". Material causality is not intended here, but instrumental causality (nimittatva) alone is stated.

And "Na cha sannyasanadeva" (And not merely by renunciation) is not a repetition, because here too renunciation of action is stated as a means to liberation? On this he says "Nanviti". In the sentence of Manu "Desireless and preceded by knowledge," liberation is declared by desireless action. And since no other logic is seen, the logic accepted there must be "because of the absence of fruit of desireless action"; since thus the absence of fruit alone is primary, therefore even in non-action, due to the similarity of absence of fruit, liberation indeed happens. The fruit of past actions that was mentioned—that is the same in the side of desireless action too. And there is no lack of reason for preference, because of the existence of "absence of effort" [in non-action]. Nor is there attainment of sin, because it is possible it applies to non-seekers of liberation. Therefore "I do not perform actions" is the view. By this [verse], how is this refuted? He says "Sannyasa". And by that, performance of desireless action is implied, this is the meaning. [Meaning] One does not attain liberation [merely] by performance of desireless action. Therefore, taking that as a counter-argument is not proper, is said by this.

And so, there is contradiction with Smriti? Therefore, he states the intention of Smriti: "Akama" (Desireless). "Sakashat" (from) is the remainder, or "Pumsam" (of men). That knowledge arises through purification of the inner instrument by desireless actions—from where is this [derived]? On this he says "Tachchoktam". Objection: Here it is said detachment arises, not knowledge? There he says "Viraktanam eva" (Of the detached alone). The meaning is that previously also "through detachment" was intended. Still, how is the contradiction resolved, since in the Gita there is a determination of the absence of desireless actions being the means to liberation? Therefore he states the intention "Na tu". The means to liberation of actions based on the logic of "absence of fruit" is prohibited, but not in every way, this is the meaning.

He releases the counter-argument: "Karmabhavat" (Due to absence of action). Therefore, there is no liberation from the absence of action, this is the meaning. He concludes the purport of the verse: "Ata" (Therefore).

Objection: The order of renunciation (Yati-ashrama) is well-known in Shruti etc. as a means to liberation, and there this very logic applies: the absence of fruit of those duties. Therefore, due to that similarity, liberation happens even in non-action—to refute this doubt also, it is said "Na cha sannyasanadeva". If so, then there is contradiction with Shruti etc.? On this he says "Yatyashramastu". "Prayatyam" means being diligent/intent, fixing the mind on the Lord. For a renunciate, the status of means to liberation through two doors is intended by Shruti etc. But that based on the logic of "absence of fruit" is rejected in the Gita, so there is no contradiction, this is the meaning. Since diligence is possible in another Ashrama too, what is the need for the renunciation order for that? On this he says "Aprayatatvam eva" (Lack of diligence indeed). In other actions like sacrifice etc. How is diligence a means to liberation? Therefore he explains through negative concomitance: "Aprayatanan cha" (And of the non-diligent). "One should obtain him by wisdom" (Katha Up 2.23) is the remainder of the Shruti. "Ashanta" means not devoted to the Lord. "Asamahita" means devoid of fixing the mind there. Since pleasing the Lord is possible in another Ashrama also, why the renunciation order? On this he says "Mahanshcha" (And great). The fourth, called Paramahamsa. Connection is with the rest of the sentence. If diligence and great satisfaction of the Lord are in the renunciation order alone, then for qualified householders devoid of that, there is a contingency of the absence of both? On this he says "Adhikarikastu". "Tatstha" means established in qualification. "Sa eva" means qualification itself. "Toshab" means that by which he is pleased. Because the rule of compound-ending is not eternal, "Adirajnam" was said. As said in the Mahabhashya: "Shuchyampi tatakani".

There, since an effect cannot occur in the absence of a cause, by the "non-commencement"—meaning non-performance—of actions which are enjoined for (attaining) Self-knowledge by the Sruti "Brahmanas desire to know Him by the study of Vedas, by sacrifices, by charity, by austerity not causing death," the aspirant, being unfit for Knowledge due to the lack of mind-purification and being extroverted, does not attain (na ashnute) "Naishkarmya"—meaning the state of being void of all actions, which corresponds to Steadfastness in Knowledge-Yoga.

(Objection) "Desiring this very world, monks renounce"—since from this Sruti, Steadfastness in Knowledge is established solely by the renunciation of all actions, what is the need for actions? To this He says "Na cha sannyasanat eva" (And not by mere renunciation)—meaning, one does not attain "Perfection" (Siddhi) characterized by Steadfastness in Knowledge, in the sense of it culminating in the proper fruit, from renunciation performed without mind-purification.

The purport is that without the mind-purification born of action, Renunciation itself is not possible; and even if performed somehow merely out of curiosity, it does not culminate in the fruit (liberation).

(Objection) If it is so, then with what intention was the command to perform action given to me? To this, He says "Na karmanam". By the "non-commencement"—non-performance—of actions, one does not attain "Naishkarmya"—meaning the state devoid of action etc., which is of the nature of Devotion (Bhakti-rupam). This is the meaning.

Here the sentiment is this: If renunciation is done in the absence of knowledge of the true nature of action, no human goal would be achieved. Therefore, its performance is (required) for the purpose of knowing its "rejectability" (heyatva - that it is worthy of being abandoned). For this very reason, "commencement" (arambha) alone is mentioned, not its performance from beginning to end.

He says that in the ignorance of its nature, mere (renunciation) does not happen, with "Na cha". "From mere renunciation"—meaning from mere abandonment due to ignorance of the nature (of action)—one does not attain "Perfection" (Siddhi)—meaning the fruit of renunciation—in a complete manner. This is the meaning.

"Karmanam"—meaning of actions or rites like sacrifices (Yajna) etc., performed in this birth or previous births; which, by being the cause of the destruction of accumulated sins, are the causes of the purification of the mind (Sattva), and by being the cause of that [purification], are the causes of "Steadfastness in Knowledge" (Jnana-nishtha) through the rise of Knowledge. This is based on Smriti texts like: "Knowledge arises for men upon the destruction of sinful karma; just as in a clear mirror surface, one sees the self in the self" (Mahabharata, Shanti Parva 204.8). By the "Anarambhat"—meaning non-performance—of such actions, a person does not attain (na ashnute) "Naishkarmyam"—which means the state of actionlessness, the void of action, steadfastness through the Yoga of Knowledge, or simply remaining established in the actionless nature of the Self.

From the statement "One does not attain Naishkarmya by the non-commencement of actions," it is understood by the converse that one does attain Naishkarmya by the commencement of those actions. For what reason is Naishkarmya not attained by the non-commencement of actions? It is said: Because the commencement of action is the very means (upaya) to Naishkarmya. Indeed, without the means, there is no attainment of the goal (upeya).

And that Karma Yoga is the means to Jnana Yoga (which is characterized by Naishkarmya) is propounded in the Sruti and here [in the Gita]. In the Sruti, regarding the "World of the Self" which is the subject to be known, Karma Yoga is propounded as the means to that "Knowing" in passages like: "Brahmanas desire to know Him by the study of Vedas, by sacrifices..." (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22). And here [in the Gita] also, He will propound: "But renunciation, O mighty-armed one, is hard to attain without Yoga" (5.6); "Yogis perform action, abandoning attachment, for the purification of the self" (5.11); "Sacrifice, charity, and austerity are the purifiers of the wise" (18.5), etc.

(Objection) In passages like "Having given fearlessness to all beings, one should practice Naishkarmya," the attainment of Naishkarmya is shown even from the renunciation of obligatory duties. And in the world too, it is quite well-known that "Naishkarmya comes from the non-commencement of actions." Therefore, what need does one desiring Naishkarmya have for the commencement of action? This view arises.

Therefore He says: "Na cha sannyasanat eva" (Nor by mere renunciation). One does not attain (na samadhigacchati) "Siddhi"—meaning the steadfastness in Jnana Yoga characterized by Naishkarmya—from "mere renunciation" alone, meaning simply the abandonment of action devoid of Knowledge.

For what reason does a person not attain Perfection characterized by Naishkarmya from mere renunciation of action devoid of Knowledge? Anticipating the desire for this reason, He says [the next verse].

That Karma (Action) etc. possess the quality of purifying the internal organ within Yoga is determined by the "Maxim of Distinctness of Connection" (Samyoga-prithaktva-nyaya) alone; otherwise, the inquiry into the three (Karma, Jnana, Bhakti) would not have been done independently. That "Perfection is attained by Yoga, by Knowledge, and by Devotion"—that this is the means to the Supreme Goal—has been determined in the authoritative commentary (Apta-bhashya / referring to Brahmasutras). Therefore, here, "From the commencement of actions comes the perfection of Naishkarmya (Liberation)"—thus He strengthens the doctrine of Yoga with "Na karmanam anarambhat" etc.

With "Na cha" (Nor...), He says that for those like you who are qualified for action, perfection does not come from the renunciation of action, nor even from Sankhya (without action).

Because it is seen that even Jivanmuktas (liberated while living) or those free from the Gunas perform actions due to possessing a body.

न not? कर्मणाम् of actions? अनारम्भात् from nonperformance? नैष्कर्म्यम् actionlessness? पुरुषः man? अश्नुते reaches? न not? च and? संन्यसनात् from renunciation? एव only? सिद्धिम् perfection? समधिगच्छति attains.Commentary Actionlessness (Naishkarmyam) and perfection (Siddhi) are synonymous. The sage who has attained to perfection or reached the state of actionlessness rests in his own essential nature as ExistenceKnowledgeBliss Absolute (Satchidananda Svarupa). He has neither necessity nor desire for action as a means to an end. He has perfect satisfaction in the Self.One attains to the state of actionlessness by gaining the knowledge of the Self. If a man simply sits iet by abandoning action you cannot say that he has attained to the state of actionlessness. His mind will be planning? scheming and speculating. Thought is real action. The sage who is free from affirmative thoughts? wishes? and likes and dislikes? who has the knowledge of the Self can be said to have attained to the state of actionlessness.No one can reach perfection or freedom from action or knowledge of the Self by mere renunciation or by simply giving up activities without possessing the knowledge of the Self. (Cf.XVIII.49).

Purusah, a person; na does not; asnute, attain; naiskarmyam, freedom from action, the state of being free from action, steadfastness in the Yoga of Knowledge, i.e. the state of abiding in one's own Self which is free from action; anarambhat, by abstaining; karmanam, from actions-by the non-performance of actions such as sacrifices etc. which are or were performed in the present or past lives, which are the causes of the purification of the mind by way of attenuating the sins incurred, and which, by being the cause of that (purification), become the source of steadfastness in Knowledge through the generation of Knowledge, as stated in the Smrti (text), 'Knowledge arises in a person from the attenuation of sinful acts' [the whole verse is:
Jnanam utpadyate pumsamksayatpapasya karmanah;
Yathadarsatalaprakhye pasyatyatmanamatmani.
'Knowledge arises৷৷.acts. One sees the Self in oneself as does one (see oneself) in a cleaned surface of a mirror'.-Tr.] (Mbh. Sa. 204.8). This is the import.
From the statement that one does not attain freedom from action by abstaining from actions, it may be concluded that one attains freedom from action by following the opposite course of performing actions. What, again, is the reason that one does not attain freedom from action by abstaining from actions? The answer is: Because performing actions is itself a means to freedom from action. Indeed, there can be no attainment of an end without (its) means. And Karma-yoga is the means to the Yoga of Knowledge characterized by freedom from action, because it has been so established in the Upanisads and here as well. As for the Upanisads, it has been shown in the texts, 'The Brahmanas seek to know It through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices, (charity, and austerity consisting in a dispassionate enjoyment of sense-objects)' (Br. 4.4.22), etc. whch deal with the means of realizing the goal of Knowledge under discussion, viz the Realm of the Self, that the Yoga of Karma is a means to the Yoga of Knowledge . And even here (in the Gita), the Lord will established that, 'But, O mighty-armed one, renunciation is hard to attain without (Karma-)yoga' (5.6); 'By giving up attachment, the yogis undertake work৷৷.for the purification of themselves' (5.11); 'Sacrifice, charity and austerity are verily the purifiers of the wise' (18.5), etc.
Objection: Is it not that in such texts as-'Extending to all creatures immunity from fear' (Na. Par. 5.43), (one should take recourse to freedom from action)-, it is shown that attainment of freedom from action follows even from the renunciation of obligatory duties? And in the world, too, it is a better known fact that freedom from action follows abstention from actions. Hence also arises the estion, 'Why should one who desires freedom from action undertake action?'
Reply: Therefore the Lord said: Na ca, nor; samadhi-gacchati, does he attain; siddhim, fulfilment steadfastness in the Yoga of Knowledge, characterized by freedom from action; sannyasanat eva, merely through renunciation-even from the mere renunciation of actions which is devoid of Knowledge.
What, again, is the reason that by the mere giving up of actions which is not accompanied with Knowledge, a person does not attain fulfulment in the form of freedom from actions? To this ery seeking to know the cause, the Lord says:

Not by non-performance of the acts prescribed by the scriptures, does a person attain freedom from Karma, i.e., Jnana Yoga; nor by ceasing to perform such actions as are prescribed in the scriptures and are already begun by him. For, success is achieved by actions done without attachment to the fruits and by way of worshipping the Supreme Person. Hence devoid of it (Karma-nistha), one does not achieve Jnana-nistha. By those persons who have not worshipped Govinda by acts done without attachment to fruits and whose beginningless and endless accumulation of evil has not been annulled thery, constant contemplation on the self is not possible. It can be done only if it is preceded by the attainment of a state in which the operation of the senses have been freed from disturbance.
This view is put forward by the Lord: