Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 6

व्याख्या--'कर्मेन्द्रियाणि संयम्य ৷৷. मिथ्याचारः स उच्यते'-- यहाँ 'कर्मेन्द्रियाणि' पदका अभिप्राय पाँच कर्मेन्द्रियों (वाक्, हस्त, पाद, उपस्थ और गुदा) से ही नहीं है, प्रत्युत इनके साथ पाँच ज्ञानेन्द्रियों (श्रोत्र, त्वचा, नेत्र, रसना और घ्राण) से भी है; क्योंकि ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंके बिना केवल कर्मेन्द्रियोंसे कर्म नहीं हो सकते। इसके सिवाय केवल हाथ, पैर आदि कर्मेन्द्रियोंको रोकनेसे तथा आँख, कान आदि ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंको न रोकनेसे पूरा मिथ्याचार भी सिद्ध नहीं होता।
गीतामें कर्मेन्द्रियोंके अन्तर्गत ही ज्ञानेन्द्रियाँ मानी गयी हैं। इसलिये गीतामें 'कर्मेन्द्रिय' शब्द तो आता है, पर 'ज्ञानेन्द्रिय' शब्द कहीं नहीं आता। पाँचवें अध्यायके आठवें-नवें श्लोकोंमें देखना, सुनना, स्पर्श करना आदि ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंकी क्रियाओंको भी कर्मेन्द्रियोंकी क्रियाओंके साथ सम्मिलित किया गया है, जिससे सिद्ध होता है कि गीता ज्ञानेन्द्रियोंको भी कर्मेन्द्रियाँ ही मानती है। गीता मनकी क्रियाओंको भी कर्म मानती है--'शरीरवाङ्मनोभिर्यत्कर्म प्रारभते नरः' (18। 15)। तात्पर्य यह है कि मात्र प्रकृति क्रियाशील होनेसे प्रकृतिका कार्यमात्र क्रियाशील है।यद्यपि 'संयम्य' पदका अर्थ होता है--इन्द्रियोंका अच्छी तरहसे नियमन अर्थात् उन्हें वशमें करना, तथापि यहाँ इस पदका अर्थ इन्द्रियोंको वशमें करना न होकर उन्हें हठपूर्वक बाहरसे रोकना ही है। कारण कि इन्द्रियोंके वशमें होनेपर उसे मिथ्याचार कहना नहीं बनता।मूढ़ बुद्धिवाला (सत्-असत् के विवेकसे रहित) मनुष्य बाहरसे तो इन्द्रियोंकी क्रियाओंको हठपूर्वक रोक देता है, पर मनसे उन इन्द्रियोंके विषयोंका चिन्तन करता रहता है और ऐसी स्थितिको क्रियारहित मान लेता है। इसलिये वह मिथ्याचारी अर्थात् मिथ्या आचरण करनेवाला कहा जाता है।यद्यपि उसने इन्द्रियोंके विषयोंको बाहरसे त्याग दिया है और ऐसा समझता है कि मैं कर्म नहीं करता हूँ, तथापि ऐसी अवस्थामें भी वह वस्तुतः कर्मरहित नहीं हुआ है। कारण कि बाहरसे क्रियारहित दीखनेपर भी अहंता, ममता और कामनाके कारण रागपूर्वक विषयचिन्तनके रूपमें विषय-भोगरूप कर्म तो हो ही रहा है।सांसारिक भोगोंको बाहरसे भी भोगा जा सकता है और मनसे भी। बाहरसे रागपूर्वक भोगोंको भोगनेसे अन्तःकरणमें भोगोंके जैसे संस्कार पड़ते हैं, वैसे ही संस्कार मनसे भोगोंको भोगनेसे अर्थात् रागपूर्वक भोगोंका चिन्तन करनेसे भी पड़ते हैं। बाहरसे भोगोंका त्याग तो मनुष्य विचारसे, लोक-लिहाजसे और व्यवहारमें गड़बड़ी आनेके भयसे भी कर सकता है, पर मनसे भोग भोगनेमें बाहरसे कोई बाधा नहीं आती। अतः वह मनसे भोगोंको भोगता रहता है और मिथ्या अभिमान करता है कि मैं भोगोंका त्यागी हूँ। मनसे भोग भोगनेसे विशेष हानि होती है क्योंकि इसके सेवनका विशेष अवसर मिलता है। अतः साधकको चाहिये कि जैसे वह बाहरके भोगोंसे अपनेको बचाता है, उनका त्याग करता है, ऐसे ही मनसे भोगोंके चिन्तनका भी विशेष सावधानीसे त्याग करे।अर्जुन भी कर्मोंका स्वरूपसे त्याग करना चाहते हैं और भगवनान्से पूछते हैं कि आप मुझे घोर कर्ममें क्यों लगाते हैं? इसके उत्तरमें यहाँ भगवान् कहते हैं कि जो मनुष्य अहंता, ममता, आसक्ति, कामना आदि रखते हुए केवल बाहरसे कर्मोंका त्याग करके अपनेको क्रियारहित मानता है, उसका आचरण मिथ्या है। तात्पर्य यह है कि साधकको कर्मोंका स्वरूपसे त्याग न करके उन्हें कामना-आसक्तिसे रहित होकर तत्परतापूर्वक करते रहना चाहिये।
सम्बन्ध-- चौथे श्लोकमें भगवान्ने कर्मयोग और सांख्ययोग--दोनोंकी दृष्टिसे कर्मोंका त्याग अनावश्यक बताया। फिर पाँचवें श्लोकमें कहा कि कोई भी मनुष्य किसी भी अवस्थामें क्षणमात्र भी कर्म किये बिना नहीं रह सकता। छठे श्लोकमें हठपूर्वक इन्द्रियोंकी क्रियाओंको रोककर अपनेको क्रियारहित मान लेनेवालेका आचरण मिथ्या बताया। इससे सिद्ध हुआ कि कर्मोंका स्वरूपसे त्याग कर देनेमात्रसे उनका वास्तविक त्याग नहीं होता। अतः आगेके श्लोकमें भगवान् वास्तविक त्यागकी पहचान बताते हैं।

जो आत्मज्ञानी न होनेपर भी शास्त्रविहित कर्म नहीं करता उसका वह कर्म न करना बुरा है यह कहते हैं जो मनुष्य हाथ पैर आदि कर्मेन्द्रियोंको रोककर इन्द्रियोंके भोगोंको मनसे चिन्तन करता रहता है वह विमूढात्मा अर्थात् मोहित अन्तःकरणवाला मिथ्याचारी ढोंगी पापाचारी कहा जाता है।

(Objection) Then, just like the Knower of the Self, does the non-knower also incur no sin by not performing action, because renunciation is possible even for a fool who is unable to control the aggregate of the body and senses? Anticipating this doubt, He says "Yastu" (But he who...).

His non-performance of the enjoined duties is referred to by the word "Tat" [in the previous context implying] "That is wrong/false." The sentiment is: Because of being hypocritical conduct.

He describes that very hypocrisy with "Karmendriyani" (Restraining the organs of action...).

(Objection) But surely by forcefully restraining the organs of action, one will become a non-performer of action? Anticipating this doubt - he who is not a knower of the Self and has an impure mind, who forcefully restrains the organs of action and does not perform prescribed duties, but renounces merely out of curiosity/eagerness - he is indeed fallen from both sides. Thus He says

"Karma" etc.

That "deluded soul" (Vimudhatma) - whose mind is sullied by attachment, aversion, etc. - who, having withdrawn the "organs of action" like hands etc., sits remembering the "sense objects" like sound etc. with the mind, he is called a "Mithyachara" - one of false conduct, of evil conduct, of sinful conduct.

Even so, renunciation should be performed according to one's capacity"—[addressing this] He says "Karmendriyani" etc.

To show that the mind alone is the instigator, He states the logical connection through positive and negative instances (Anvaya and Vyatireka) with "Manasa smaran" (remembering with the mind [in this verse]) and "Manasa niyamya" (controlling with the mind [in the next verse]).

"Karma-yoga" [mentioned in the context] means action suitable to one's own Varna and Ashrama.

There is no rule that it refers only to the householder's duty, because of the scriptural injunctions for Sannyasa etc., and because of the general nature of the statement.

(Objection) "Surely, having renounced, I will accomplish the purification of the mind through meditation alone; what is the use of actions?" Anticipating this doubt, He says

"Karmendriyani" etc. He who is a deluded soul—whose mind is overcome by attachment etc.—having restrained the organs of action (speech etc.), "sits"—meaning sits in solitude under the pretext of meditation—he is of false conduct (Mithyachara).

His conduct, such as regulating the posture etc., is "Mithya"—meaning indeed false (useless)—because it is fruitless. The reason there is "remembering sense objects with the mind." Since he grasps the sense objects like sound etc. [mentally] and remembers them with the mind, therefore he is of false conduct. While thinking of objects, he displays to the world his own establishment in Yoga; therefore, he is a deceiver. This is the meaning.

Therefore, there is no means for purification of the mind other than action; this is the purport.

Due to his sins not being destroyed, one whose external and internal organs are uncontrolled, and who has set out for Self-knowledge; but due to inclination towards objects, whose mind has been turned away from the Self; he who "sits" remembering objects alone—meaning, resolving one way (to meditate) but acting another way (thinking of objects)—he is called a "Mithyachara" (hypocrite).

The meaning is that even though striving for Self-knowledge, he becomes contrary (perverse) and is ruined.

Therefore, He criticizes the ignorant renouncer of action with "Karmendriyani" etc.

Having restrained even the organs of action like speech, hands, etc., he who sits remembering the objects of the senses with the mind, under the guise of meditation on the Lord—because of the lack of steadiness in the Self due to the mind being impure—he is called a "Mithyachara"—one of deceitful conduct, a hypocrite. This is the meaning.

He states the obstacle arising from non-performance with the word "Anyatha" (otherwise). It means: without performing Karma Yoga.

With the phrase "remembering with the mind," he states the cause which is implied by the meaning, with "Avinashta" (Undestroyed [sins]...). "Atmavimukhikritamana" means his mind has been turned away from the Self. In "Vimudhatma," the word "Atma" refers to the mind. "Mudhatva" (delusion) implies turning away from the Self.

The meaning of the word "Eva" (in the commentary context) is: he remembers those very objects from which he wished to restrain his senses.

He explains the mode of "Mithyachara" (false conduct) with "Anyatha sankalpya" (Resolving otherwise...). Indeed, ultimately everywhere, "being otherwise" (contrariety) is falsity. Even here, since his conduct is contrary to the Knowledge-Yoga he resolved to practice, his conduct is stated to be "Mithya" (false) regarding the conduct desired for Knowledge-Yoga.

Rejecting the idea that "Mithyachara" is merely a designation, he states that it culminates in a defect with "Atma..." etc. By the words "Viparita" (contrary) and "Vinashta" (ruined), it is shown that contrariety in the means leads to contrariety in the fruit.

The word "Vinashta" (ruined) recalls that this very meaning was detailed in the Second Chapter starting from "Musing on objects..." (2.62) ending with "...from the destruction of the intellect, he perishes" (2.63).

शरीर से निष्क्रिय होकर कहीं भी नहीं पहुँचा जा सकता फिर पूर्णत्व की स्थिति के विषय में क्या कहना। जिसने कर्मेन्द्रियों के निग्रह के साथ ही मन और बुद्धि को विषयों के चिन्तन से बुद्धिमत्तापूर्वक निवृत्त नहीं किया हो तो ऐसे साधक की आध्यात्मिक उन्नति निश्चय ही असुरक्षित और आनन्दरहित होगी।मनोविज्ञान की आधुनिक पुस्तकों मे उपर्युक्त वाक्य का सत्यत्व सिद्ध होता है। शरीर से अनैतिक और अपराध पूर्ण कर्म करने की अपेक्षा मन से उनका चिन्तन करते रहना अधिक हानिकारक है। मन का स्वभाव है एक विचार को बारंबार दोहराना। इस प्रकार एक ही विचार के निरन्तर चिन्तन से मन में उसका दृढ़ संस्कार (वासना) बन जाता है और फिर जो कोई विचार हमारे मन में उठता है उनका प्रवाह पूर्व निर्मित दिशा में ही होता है। विचारो की दिशा निश्चित हो जाने पर वही मनुष्य का स्वभाव बन जाता है जो उसके प्रत्येक कर्म में व्यक्त होता है। अत निरन्तर विषयचिन्तन से वैषयिक संस्कार मन में गहराई से उत्कीर्ण हो जाते हैं और फिर उनसे प्रेरित विवश मनुष्य संसार में इसी प्रकार के कर्म करते हुये देखने को मिलता है।जो व्यक्ति बाह्य रूप से नैतिक और आदर्शवादी होने का प्रदर्शन करते हुये मन में निम्न स्तर की वृत्तियों में रहता है वास्तव में वह अध्यात्म का सच्चा साधक नहीं वरन् जैसा कि यहाँ कहा गया है विमूढ और मिथ्याचारी है हम सब जानते हैं कि शारीरिक संयम होने पर भी मन की वैषयिक वृत्तियों को संयमित करना सामान्य पुरुष के लिये कठिन होता है।यह समझते हुये कि सामान्य पुरुष अपनी स्वाभाविक प्रवृत्तियों से स्वयं को सुरक्षित रखने का उपाय नहीं जान सकता इसलिये भगवान कहते हैं

"Karmendriyani" (Organs of action) etc. If one does not act with organs of action, then necessarily—(S omits 'tarhi' [then])—he acts with the mind;

on the contrary "Sah" (he) is "Mudhacharah" (of foolish conduct); because of mental actions being absolutely unavoidable.

(Objection) Still, the mention of "Karmendriyani" (Organs of action) seems inconsistent, because remembering sense objects with the mind was not explicitly stated [as an issue] in the third position [discussed previously]? To this, he says "Tathapi". (The opposing view is): Although actions for bodily maintenance cannot be abandoned, one should abandon actions like Yajna (sacrifice) according to one's capacity, because it is possible. The argument is: "Scriptural injunctions do not apply to impossible subjects," therefore the word "Karma" in the Smriti must refer to actions other than those (unavoidable ones).

The resolution of this doubt is seen in this verse. (Objection) And the second verse (Verse 7) is useless? To this, he says "Mana eva". The Mind alone is the determinant of bondage and liberation, not the performance or non-performance of action. Therefore, control of that (Mind) is what should be done, not the renunciation of action—to make this known is the meaning.

When the mind is uncontrolled, regarding bondage, the first (Verse 6) acts as Anvaya (positive correlation), and the second (Verse 7) as Vyatireka (negative correlation). However, regarding liberation, it is the reverse. By this, the objection that "Since remembering inherently involves the mind, the word 'Manasa' (with the mind) is redundant" is also refuted.

Since in "Karma-yogena yoginam" (3.3), the context of the word "Karma-yoga" was regarding the duties of householders etc., there might be an assumption that here too it refers only to that. To refute this, he explains "Karmayogam". The meaning is that a restriction such as "only householder duties," "only hermit duties," or "only student duties" is not intended. It includes whatever is distinct from what is restricted by the term "Sannyasa" etc., and because the word "Karma-yoga" is a general term.

Previously, in "Jnanayogena sankhyanam" (3.3), because the duty of the Renunciate order (Yati-ashrama) was mentioned separately, the general word was established in a specific sense. But here, there is no such thing; this is the purport.

One who has performed Renunciation somehow merely out of curiosity, but has an impure mind, does not partake of its fruit.

Because - the "Deluded Soul" (Vimudhatma) - whose internal organ is corrupted by attachment, aversion, etc. - having restrained the "organs of action" like speech, hands, etc. merely out of curiosity - meaning not performing actions with external organs; who sits remembering the "objects of the senses" like sound etc. with a mind impelled by attachment etc., and not remembering the Reality of the Self, remaining void of action with the pride "I have performed Renunciation" - he is a "Mithyachara" (Hypocrite). Due to the absence of purification of the mind (Sattva), being unfit for the fruit, he is called "Papachara" (Sinful conduct).

According to Dharmashastra texts like: "Renunciation of all actions is ordained here by the Sruti for the discrimination of the meaning of the term 'Thou' (the Self); therefore, he who abandons that (prematurely/without qualification) becomes fallen."

Therefore, it is substantiated that one with an impure internal organ does not attain perfection merely by renunciation.

He states that the hypocrite who renounces action out of ignorance does not attain the fruit of sacrifice, with "Karmendriyani" etc.

He who, having restrained—controlled—the organs of action like hands, feet, etc., sits remembering the objects of the senses with the mind—in order to show the world as if he has attained a state of meditation on God—

that deluded soul is "Mithyachara"—meaning one who acts falsely; the meaning is that he is called a hypocrite (Dambhika).

He who sits having restrained—withdrawn—the organs of action like hands etc., yet remembering—thinking of—the objects of the senses with the mind; that "Vimudhatma"—one with a deluded internal organ—

is called "Mithyachara"—one of false conduct, untrue conduct, or sinful conduct.

And the view that "Naishkarmya" is possible by merely not performing actions with the organs of action—that too is not correct; because the stated nature [of Naishkarmya], which involves the cessation of mental activity, is impossible [through mere physical restraint]. This He says with "Karmendriyani" etc.

(Verses cited in commentary): "The renunciation proclaimed in Sankhya is indeed renunciation by the mind alone. In non-renunciation, there is indeed the path of Yoga, and upon the perfection of Yoga, there is fulfillment.

For that purpose, a certain process has been described even in the Puranas. It has been spoken of in many ways by the Sages, but the fruit is one: inwardness (non-external).

If there is Sannyasa by mere renunciation of action, but again remembrance of it with the mind, there is the arising of sin (Pratyavaya); therefore, the performance of that (action) is considered [better]."

Therefore, the man who is himself a doer of action with the mind—possessing mental activity regarding objects—that deluded soul is called one of futile conduct (Vyarthachara).

कर्मेन्द्रियाणि organs of action? संयम्य restraining? यः who? आस्ते sits? मनसा by the mind? स्मरन् remembering? इन्द्रियार्थान् senseobjects? विमूढात्मा of deluded understanding? मिथ्याचारः hypocrite? सः he? उच्यते is called.Commentary The five organs of action? Karma Indriyas? are Vak (organ of speech)? Pani (hands)? Padam (feet)? Upastha (genitals) and Guda (anus). They are born of the Rajasic portion of the five Tanmatras or subtle elements Vak from the Akasa Tanmatra (ether)? Pani from the Vayu Tanmatra (air)? Padam from the Agni Tanmatra (fire)? Upastha from the Apas Tanmatra (water)? and Guda from the Prithivi Tanmatra (earth). That man who? restraining the organs of action? sits revolving in his mind thoughts regarding the objects of the senses is a man of sinful conduct. He is selfdeluded. He is a veritable hypocrite.The organs of action must be controlled. The thoughts should also be controlled. The mind should be firmly fixed on the Lord. Only then will you become a true Yogi. Only then will you attain to Selfrealisation.

Yah, one who; samyamya, after withdrawing; karma-indriyani, the organs of action-hands etc.; aste, sits; manasa, mentally; smaran, recollecting, thinking; indriya-arthan, the objects of the senses; sah, that one; vimudha-atma, of deluded mind; ucyate, is called; mithya-acarah, a hypocrite, a sinful person.

He whose inner and outer organs of senses are not conered because of his sins not being annulled but is none the less struggling for winning knowledge of the self, whose mind is forced to turn away from the self by reason of it being attached to sense objects, and who conseently lets his minds dwell on them - he is called a hypocrite, because his actions are at variance with his professions. The meaning is that by practising the knowledge of the self in this way, he becomes perverted and lost.