Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 4 - Shloka (Verse) 14

व्याख्या--'चातुर्वर्ण्यं' (टिप्पणी प0 235.1) 'मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागशः'--पूर्वजन्मोंमें किये गये कर्मोंके अनुसार सत्त्व, रज और तम--इन तीनों गुणोंमें न्यूनाधिकता रहती है। सृष्टि-रचनाके समय उन गुणों और कर्मोंके अनुसार भगवान् ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय, वैश्य और शूद्र--इन चारों वर्णोंकी रचना करते हैं (टिप्पणी प0 235.2)। मनुष्यके सिवाय देव, पितर, तिर्यक् आदि दूसरी योनियोंकी रचना भी भगवान् गुणों और कर्मोंके अनुसार ही करते हैं। इसमें भगवान्की किञ्चिन्मात्र भी विषमता नहीं है।'चातुर्वर्ण्यम्' पद प्राणिमात्रका उपलक्षण है। इसका तात्पर्य है कि मनुष्य ही चार प्रकारके नहीं होते, अपितु पशु, पक्षी, वृक्ष आदि भी चार प्रकारके होते हैं; जैसे--पक्षियोंमें कबूतर आदि ब्राह्मण, बाज आदि क्षत्रिय, चील आदि वैश्य और कौआ आदि शूद्र पक्षी हैं। इसी प्रकार वृक्षोंमें पीपल आदि ब्राह्मण, नीम आदि क्षत्रिय, इमली आदि वैश्य और बबूल (कीकर) आदि शूद्र वृक्ष हैं। परन्तु यहाँ 'चातुर्वर्ण्यम्' पदसे मनुष्योंको ही लेना चाहिये; क्योंकि वर्ण-विभागको मनुष्य ही समझ सकते हैं और उसके अनुसार कर्म कर सकते हैं। कर्म करनेका अधिकार मनुष्यको ही है।
चारों वर्णोंकी रचना मैंने ही की है--इससे भगवान्का यह भाव भी है कि एक तो ये मेरे ही अंश हैं; और दूसरे, मैं प्राणिमात्रका सुहृद् हूँ, इसलिये मैं सदा उनके हितको ही देखता हूँ। इसके विपरीत ये न तो देवताके अंश हैं और न देवता सबसे सुहृद् ही हैं। इसलिये मनुष्यको चाहिये कि वह अपने वर्णके अनुसार समस्त कर्तव्य-कर्मोंसे मेरा ही पूजन करे (गीता 18। 46)।

जिन कर्मोंका तू मुझे कर्ता मानता है वास्तवमें मैं उनका अकर्ता ही हूँ क्योंकि मुझमें अहंकारका अभाव है इसलिये वे कर्म देहादिकी उत्पत्तिके कारण बनकर मुझे लिप्त नहीं करते और उन कर्मोंके फलमें मेरी लालसा अर्थात् तृष्णा भी नहीं है। जिन संसारी मनुष्योंका कर्मोंमें मैं कर्ता हूँ ऐसा अभिमान रहता है एवं जिनकी उन कर्मोंमें और उनके फलोमें लालसा रहती है उनको कर्म लिप्त करते हैं यह ठीक है परंतु उन दोनोंका अभाव होनेके कारण वे ( कर्म ) मुझे लिप्त नहीं कर सकते। इस प्रकार जो कोई दूसरा भी मुझे आत्मरूपसे जान लेता है कि मैं कर्मोंका कर्ता नहीं हूँ मेरी कर्मफलमें स्पृहा भी नहीं है वह भी कर्मोंसे नहीं बँधता अर्थात् उसके भी कर्म देहादिके उत्पादक नहीं होते।

Since agency and enjoyment are in reality absent in the Lord, the absence of connection with action and its fruit follows; this He says with "yesham tu" (but of those), etc.

For the one who sees the Lord as devoid of contact with action and its fruit, He shows the result corresponding to that vision with "na mam" (Not Me), etc. "Tani karmani" (Those actions)—meaning, those actions of which you consider Me the doer.

Regarding the absence of contact of those actions—which originate the body, senses, etc.—with the Lord, He establishes the "absence of ego" in His state as the cause thereof as the reason—"ahankara-bhavat" (due to the absence of ego). Also, due to the absence of thirst for the fruit of action, actions do not taint the Lord; He says this with "na cha" (nor), etc.

He expands on what was just stated with "yesham tu," etc. Meaning: due to the absence of that—i.e., due to the absence of the conceit "I am the doer" regarding actions and the absence of desire for their fruits.

(Objection:) Even if the Lord is untainted by action, what does that matter to the Kshetrajna (individual soul)? Anticipating this, He explains the second half of the verse with "ityevam" (thus), etc. He enacts the mode of recognition with "na aham" (I am not...), etc. He states the fruit of knowledge with "sa karmabhih" (he by actions...), etc. He clarifies regarding the one who knows the non-connection with action with "tasyapi" (even for him...), etc.

"Ata eva"—therefore, due to the absence of egoism, those actions do not taint Me; meaning, they do not bind [Me] as the originator of the body, etc. The meaning "they do not make Me attached" was not displayed by the Acharyas (Shankara), considering it would be a tautology (repetition) with "na me karmaphale spriha" (I have no desire in the fruit of action). "Me"—My—spriha, thirst, or attachment to the fruit of action does not exist. Because of this too, actions do not taint Me; this is the meaning.

As for the view: "Objection: How can a doer be a non-doer? To this He says 'na mam,' etc. Why is there no taint of action either? To this He says 'na me,' etc. He who has the conceit of agency is tainted. And he alone who desires the fruit considers himself the agent. Due to the absence of desire for fruit, one is a non-agent, and due to non-agency, one is not tainted"—this view is "chintyam" (questionable/unsound). Because the deep-seated identification with agency and the attachment to fruit are [both] stated as binding; therefore, describing it otherwise here is inappropriate. Also, a Mumukshu (seeker of liberation) who is devoid of desire for fruit would, by that logic alone, attain non-agency. And due to being untainted, the contingency of the absence of birth would arise (which is not true for a seeker). (If so) where should "Actions do not taint Me" be asserted?

"Iti"—He who recognizes Me as the Self, knowing "In Me, who am non-different from the Supreme Self, there is no agency and no desire for the fruit of action"—he is not bound by actions. Meaning, obtaining connection with the body, etc., he does not transmigrate.

As for the view: "Knowing that the cause of My (the Lord's) untaintedness is freedom from egoism and desire, even his (the knower's) egoism becomes loosened"—this too is "chintyam." Because without the direct realization (sakshatkara) of non-difference from the Lord, there is no destruction of the root of agency, etc., and thus liberation is impossible for one possessing (merely) the stated knowledge. Otherwise, the contingency of the absence of bondage caused by action would apply even to fools who possess this much (intellectual) knowledge.

Ata eva (Therefore) actions do not taint Me. For this reason also they do not taint, He says "na me karmaphale spriha" (I have no desire in the fruit of action).

There is mere will (iccha), but there is no deep attachment (abhinivesha) therein. And that has been stated: "That Supreme Lord, even while desiring, does not desire like an ordinary person. For Vishnu has no insistence (agraha), since knowledge alone is His desire."

And it is not that since "some become liberated," gradually there is universal liberation (sarva-mukti). To that effect is the Shruti: "Having known Him thus by the mind and in the heart, the wise one does not approach death again" (Mahanarayana Upanishad).

"How so, or (how many)?"—To this, "Infinite" or "Like the infinite," thus he said.

Nanu (Objection): "How can a doer be a non-doer?" To this He says "na mam" (Not Me), etc.

"Why is there no taint of action either?" To this He says "na me" (Not My), etc.

He who has the conceit of agency is tainted; and only he who desires the fruit considers himself the agent. Thus, due to the absence of desire for fruit, I am a Non-Agent, and due to non-agency, I am not tainted.

"Iti"—he who knows Me thus is not bound by actions due to the renunciation of desire for the fruit of action.

Since these actions of variegated creation, etc., do not taint Me, [meaning] they do not bind Me. These variations of gods, humans, etc., are not instigated by Me, but are instigated by the specific actions in the form of merit and sin of the created beings (srijyanam)—this is the meaning. Therefore, by the discrimination between what is obtained (agency via mere instrumentality) and what is not obtained (responsibility for diversity), I am not the Doer of the variegated creation, etc.

And since the created Kshetrajnas (souls), obtaining bodies and senses in creation, experience the collection of enjoyable objects obtained in creation in accordance with their own actions which are the cause of attachment to fruit, etc., and the desire for the fruits of actions like creation belongs to them alone—therefore "I have no desire."

So says the Sutrakara: "Partiality and cruelty are not [in the Lord] because of dependency" (Brahma Sutra 2.1.34). Thus says Bhagavan Parashara: "He is only the instrumental cause in the actions of creating the created beings. The potencies of the things to be created are the primary causes... Except for being the instrumental cause, this [creation] requires nothing else. O best of ascetics, a thing is led to its state of being a thing by its own potency" (Vishnu Purana 1.4.51-52).

This Supreme Person is merely the operative cause of the creation of the created Kshetrajnas like gods, etc.; but regarding the variety of gods, etc., the primary cause is the ancient karma-potencies of the Kshetrajnas who are being created. Therefore, "except for the instrumental cause"—meaning, except for the Supreme Person who is the creator of the creation—this Kshetrajna-entity does not depend on anything else regarding the variegated states of gods, etc.; it is led to the state of being a god, etc., indeed by the ancient karma-potency inherent in itself—this is the meaning.

He who knows Me in the manner thus described as the Non-Agent even while being the Agent of creation, etc., and as devoid of attachment to the fruit of actions like creation, etc., he is not bound by ancient actions which oppose the commencement of Karma Yoga and which are the cause of attachment to fruit, etc.; [meaning] he is liberated.

Showing that very thing, He says "na mam" (Not Me), etc.

Actions, even the creation of the universe, etc., do not taint Me, [meaning] they do not make Me attached. [Why?] Due to the absence of egoism.

And because I am Apta-kama (one whose desires are fulfilled), there is an absence of desire for the fruit of action in Me; therefore, that they do not taint Me goes without saying.

Since, he who recognizes Me thus—through the absence of desire in the fruit of action—he too is not bound by actions.

[This is] because, for him who knows that the cause of My untaintedness is freedom from egoism and desirelessness, etc., his egoism, etc., also becomes slackened.

Considering that "Agency belonging to one person regarding one effect, and the absence thereof, is contradictory," he raises the objection with "katham" (how). Agency is primary, but non-agency is stated because of the absence of being the cause of inequality; he reveals this with "yatah" (since), etc. The word "Karma" here does not refer to merit and sin (punya-papa), because it is not useful in the current context [of creation], because at this stage there is no doubt about being subject to karma [for the Lord], because it is appropriate to interpret it as a resolution to the suspected contradiction, and because the prescription of what is expected is stronger than the prescription of what is unexpected—with this intention, he says "imani vichitra..." (these actions of variegated creation, etc.). Since the literal meaning of "na mam limpanti" (do not taint Me) is inconsistent, he states the purport (lakshya) with "na mam... sambadhnanti" (do not bind Me). "How is the contradiction resolved by just this much?" To this, he says "na matprayuktani" (not instigated by Me). The idea is: being the specific cause regarding the part of inequality (vaishamya) is denied [for the Lord], so there is no contradiction. "Who then is the special cause of the unequal creation?" To this, he says "tani" (they/those actions), etc. Based on the stated reason, he concludes the propriety of the designation of "non-agency" with "ata" (therefore), etc. "Praptapraptavivekena"—meaning, by the specific deduction made from observing the gradation of the unequal creation of happiness, misery, etc., which corresponds to the gradation of merit and sin. The idea is: just as for variegated sprouts, the earth, water, etc., are general causes, but the variety is caused by the variety of their own seeds, so it is here.

Thus, non-agency is stated due to the absence of being the instigator of the specific [variety]. Now, non-agency is stated due to desirelessness regarding the fruit of the specific creation; with this intention, he explains "na me karma..." with "yatashcha" (and since), etc. The negation of His own desire is intended to imply the existence of desire in others; to reveal this, "srishta" (created), etc., is said. By the reference to action in "created kshetrajnas," it is implied that creation is for the establishment of the kshetrajnas who have attained the state of enjoyership. The form suitable for enjoyership is stated as "srishtilabdhakaranakalevarah" (having obtained instruments and bodies in creation). The idea is: creation is not for the sake of My obtaining instruments, etc. The word "phalasangadihetu" qualifies their actions, either as a Bahuvrihi or Tatpurusha compound. Or the reading is "phalasangadihetubhih." "Svakarmanugunam" (according to their own actions)—meaning, not according to My specific will independent of that. "Karmaphale"—here too, the word karma refers to the contextual actions of creation, etc. But since the nature of fruit implies action in the form of merit and sin, he says "in the fruit of creation, etc., and in the fruit of action." "Impelling them in accordance with their respective desires rooted in the beginningless stream of vasanas (impressions), I bestow fruit corresponding to their respective merit and sin caused by those desires; I do not give fruit according to My own desire, nor do I give unequal fruit merely by My own independence, nor do I afflict others for My own purpose"—all this is expressed by the text ending with "na me spriha."

Here, with "The holy Upanishad was spoken by Krishna Dvaipayana" (Mahabharata 1.1.153)—he brings the meaning stated by the collector of the Gita-Upanishad in the Fifth Veda (Vyasa) into agreement with the Sariraka Sutra (Brahma Sutra) with "tatha'ha" (so he says). He also shows the statement of his father (Parashara), the knower of the supreme truth of the Deity, with "tatha'ha." For there (in Vishnu Purana), after mentioning the manifestation of Varaha and describing the uplifting of the earth and the division of land, mountains, etc., ending with "Assuming the form of Brahma, the God..." (VP 1.4.49)—and "Then the Lord Hari, assuming the four-faced form, enveloped by Rajas, performed creation" (VP 1.4.50)—the creation within the worlds of Svarga, etc., by Lord Vishnu in the body of the Four-faced (Brahma) is the subject. Then, the two verses "nimittamatram" (VP 1.4.51-52) are spoken. Subsequently, implied by "Just as this God created..." (VP 1.5.1) ending with "in detail" (VP 1.5.2), Maitreya's question also concerns the unequal creation of gods, etc. And in the reply by Bhagavan Parashara, starting from "Maitreya, I shall tell you..." (VP 1.5.3) to "What else do you wish to hear?" (VP 1.5.24), after a brief explanation, when Maitreya asks again for great detail—"Affected by former actions, skilled and unskilled, liberated not even by that knowledge, and withdrawn even in dissolution... The fourfold subjects starting with immobile beings and gods, O Brahmin" (VP 1.5.26-27)—indeed, the unequal creation of gods, etc., dependent on their respective actions is elaborated. Therefore, by considering the preceding and succeeding context, the word "srijya" here refers to specific created beings like gods and humans, and the word "shakti" refers to their "karma" alone; because he will mention the word "shakti" regarding karma also in "Avidya, the term for karma, is considered the third Shakti" (VP 6.7.61).

And "nimittamatram" (VP 1.4.52) is not a negation of material causality (upadanatva), because of the contingency of contradicting the preceding and succeeding statements of Shruti, Smriti, and Sutra. Therefore, since it is instigated by those specific actions, the primacy (of the Lord) regarding the part of inequality in the unequal creation mentioned in the context is denied by this; just as in "These have already been slain by Me alone; be merely the instrumental cause, O Savyasachin" (Gita 11.33). "For the potencies of the created beings are the primary causes" (VP 1.4.51)—this is indeed said here too. (Objection:) "Indeed, if this is so, the non-primacy of the Lord would be stated; and that is contrary to the Sutras etc., and contrary to agency—for they recall the definition of an agent as primacy regarding the cycle of factors in 'The independent one is the agent' (Panini 1.4.54). Therefore, this word 'pradhana' refers to the material cause?" (Answer:) If you say this, it is not so; because it contradicts the Shruti etc., regarding the oneness of the instrumental and material cause, and because the word 'karana' (instrument) is inappropriate for a material cause. And there is no contingency of non-independence, because even the Adrishta (unseen karma), which is the instigator of the specific [result] and is an instrument, is dependent on Him. Therefore, by the second verse (Gita 4.14) also, the requirement of the Lord as the general cause and His independence from other extraordinary causes (for His own existence/will) is stated. Keeping all this in mind, he explains the two verses with "srijyanam," etc.

The meaning of the word "srijya" is qualified by the context; this is stated by "of the kshetrajnas." To eliminate the interpretation of the word "nimitta" as the instrumental cause read alongside the material cause (in a dualistic sense), he says "karanamatram" (operative cause only). regarding "srijyashaktayah," to remove the delusion of a grammatical apposition (that the created beings are the powers), he says "srijyabhuta" (the beings who are created), etc. To remove the doubt "How can there be karma for those who are devoid of instruments, bodies, etc., and have attained non-differentiation at the time of dissolution?", he says "prachina" (ancient). Actions were accomplished by bodies possible in the previous Kalpa; for they recall "Action is not exhausted even in hundreds of crores of Kalpas without being experienced" (Brahma Vaivarta Purana 26.70). Nor is there absolute non-differentiation of eternal Kshetrajnas even in dissolution. And this is aphorized: "If it be said that [karma] does not exist because of non-differentiation, nay, because of beginninglessness, and it is reasonable and also found" (Brahma Sutra 2.1.35-36). The word "vastu" here refers to the specific created beings established by the context; with this intention, he says "idam kshetrajnavastu" (this entity of the knower of the field). When it is said "By its own power, a thing is led to 'thing-ness' (vastutam)," it means it is led to "another state"; because if one intends "connection with existence" for what was previously non-existent, it contradicts the doctrine of Satkaryavada; and in "a thing... to thing-ness by its own power," there would be the contingency of self-dependence (atmayashraya), etc. And that "other state" in this context is the state of being a god, etc., for those who attained dissolution; with this intention, he says "the state of a thing such as a god, etc." Thus, the non-contradiction of agency and non-agency has been explained. The application of the stated meaning to the present subject is stated with "iti mam," etc. The word "iti" refers to everything starting from "chaturvarnyam" (4.13); with this intention, he says "evam" (thus). Although "karmabhih" is a general reference, since it is impossible for all actions to be destroyed merely by the contextual knowledge, (the meaning is) "action performed having known thus."

नित्य शुद्ध और परिपूर्ण आत्मा को किसी प्रकार की अपूर्णता का भान नहीं हो सकता जो किसी इच्छा को जन्म दे। इस दृष्टि से श्रीकृष्ण भगवान् कहते हैं कर्म मुझे दूषित नहीं कर सकते और न मुझे कर्मफल में कोई आसक्ति ही है। इच्छा अथवा कर्म का बन्धन जीवअहंकार के लिये ही हो सकता है। मन और बुद्धि की उपाधियों से युक्त चैतन्य आत्मा ही जीव कहा जाता है। इन उपाधियों के दोषयुक्त होने पर जीव ही दूषित हुआ समझा जाता है। इसे एक दृष्टान्त के द्वारा हम भली भांति समझ सकेंगे।यदि किसी पात्र में रखे जल में सूर्य प्रतिबिम्वित होता है तो उस प्रतिबिम्ब की स्थिति पूर्णतया उस जल की स्थिति पर निर्भर करती है। जल के शान्त अस्थिर अथवा मैले होने पर वह प्रतिबिम्ब भी स्थिर क्षुब्ध अथवा धुंधला दिखाई देगा। परन्तु महाकाश स्थित वास्तविक सूर्य पर इस चंचलता अथवा निश्चलता का कोई प्रभाव नहीं पड़ेगा। इसी प्रकार इच्छा आसक्ति आदि का प्रभाव अहंकार पर ही पड़ता है। नित्य मुक्त चैतन्य स्वरूप आत्मा इन सबसे किसी प्रकार भी दूषित नहीं होती।आत्मविकास की वैदिक साधना का यह अर्थ नवीन प्रतीत होता है। क्या इसके पूर्व किसी ने इसका आचरण किया था उत्तर है

"Chaturvarnyam" (The fourfold order), etc. "Na mam" (Not Me), etc.

Indeed, how can there be any taint by actions for Me, who am like Akasha (space/ether)? The resemblance to Akasha is due to the absence of desire.

"Iti" (Thus)—he who takes refuge in the Lord alone through this mode of knowledge, [who takes refuge] in the Supreme Lord alone who is a mass of bliss (Anandaghana) everywhere and at all times, and who reflects according to the maxim "There is nothing higher than Vasudeva"—how can there be bondage by actions for him?

Indicating another defect in the misinterpretation (by others), asking "What is the relevance of stating the distinctness of action (in the other view)?", he states the connection with the subsequent (text)—"Therefore indeed" (Ata eva). By the word 'Eva', he implies that only in our interpretation does this cause-and-effect relationship hold good, not in the other's interpretation.

For Jivas, deep attachment (Abhinivesha) etc. is the cause for the taint of karma; that (cause) does not exist in Him. Falsity (Mithyatva) is common even to the Jiva's action (in the opponent's view); so if there is absence of taint for them too, based on what would the objection be raised? "There is a distinction due to Knowledge"—if you say this, (Answer) No, because that is not heard (in the text). And the "prevention of taint" is useless, because that (action) also is to be known as false.

Since the cause and effect have been stated, why is "Actions do not taint Me..." stated? To this he says "Itashcha" (And for this reason also). (Objection) Now, even if there is absence of desire for fruit for the Lord for His own sake, it certainly exists for the sake of others; so how is this said? To this he says "Iccha" (Desire). There, regarding the fruit of action, that by which the distraction of the mind persists until its attainment is 'Abhinivesha' (deep attachment/obsession). Here he states the proof with "Tachcha".

By the rule "Vyatyayo bahulam" (Panini 3.1.85), there is an interchange (of case ending). "Knowledge like knowledge"—thus regarding "Mam" (Me), for the knower, the fruit called "Liberation" is stated. And that is by the present tense suffix. And previously by the past tense suffix in "Attained My being" (4.10).

There, raising the objection of the 'Single-Soul Theorist' (Eka-jiva-vadi), he refutes it with "Na cha". In the view that some are liberated now and some became liberated (in the past), universal liberation would have occurred gradually in the past time itself. And if so, there would be non-perception of Samsara now—such a doubt should be raised. Why (not)? Because the Shruti itself, having raised such a doubt, has resolved it; thus he says "Tatha hi". "By the heart and the intellect"—how is this logical given the stated objection? To this doubt, the answer is "Infinite Jivas."

(Objection) But Time is also infinite? He answers this with "Anantavat" (Like the Infinite). Just as the Lord is infinite surpassing even the moments of time, similarly (Jivas) are infinite. "Kuta iti hovacha" (He said, How/From where?)—this is another Shruti.

Actions—creation of the universe etc.—do not taint Me, the Lord who is devoid of the pride of doership due to egolessness; meaning they do not bind Me by originating a body. Thus He refutes doership. "Na me" (Not for Me)—meaning for Me who am 'Aptakama' (whose desires are fulfilled)—is there "Spriha" (desire), i.e., craving, in the "Karma-phale" (fruit of action). From the Shruti "For one who has achieved all desires, what is the craving?" Indeed, actions taint only through the pride of doership and desire for fruit; due to their absence, "Actions do not taint Me."

Thus, whoever else also knows Me well as the Non-doer and Non-enjoyer, as his own Self, he is not bound by actions. He is liberated by the 'Knowledge of the Non-doer Self'; this is the meaning.

"Nanu" (Objection): "If this is so [that the Lord is a non-doer], why do the wise perform action?" To this, He says "na mam" (Not Me), etc.

Actions do not taint Me—[meaning] they do not control Me. "Me"—My—"karmaphale"—in sacrifices etc., I have no "spriha" (desire)—just as [senses have desire for objects, I do not] like the senses etc.

He who knows Me thoroughly in this manner is not bound by the enjoyment of fruits.

Those actions do not taint Me, because of the absence of egoism regarding being the originator of the body, etc. Nor do "Me" (I) have spriha (thirst) in the fruits of those actions. But for those Samsarins (worldly beings) who have the conceit "I am the doer," and desire in actions and their fruits, it is only proper that actions taint them. Due to the absence of that [ego/desire], actions do not taint Me.

"Iti"—Thus, whosoever else also recognizes Me as the Self, knowing "I am not the doer, I have no desire in the fruit of action," he is not bound by actions. Meaning, even for him, actions do not become originators of the body, etc.

"I am not the doer, I have no desire in the fruit of action"—thus ends (the commentary).

Tathahi (To explain)—"Na mam" (Not Me [do actions taint]), "yatah" (because) "na karmaphale spriha" (there is no desire for the fruit of action). "This alone is My distinctiveness (vilakshanatvam) from the Jiva (living entity)"

—he who recognizes Me thus, he also becomes Maddharma (one of My nature/possessing My characteristics).

न not? माम् Me? कर्माणि actions? लिम्पन्ति taint? न not? मे to Me? कर्मफले in the fruit of actions? स्पृहा desire? इति thus? माम् Me? यः who? अभिजानाति knows? कर्मभिः by actions? न not? सः he? बध्यते is bound.Commentary As I have neither egoism nor desire for fruits? I am not bound by actions. Wordly people think they are the agents and they perfrom actions. They also expect fruits for their actions. So they take birth again and again. If one works without attachment? without egoism? without expectation of fruits? he too will not be bound by actions. He will be freed from birth and death. (Cf.IX.9).

Because of the absence of egoism, those karmani, actions; na limpanti, do not taint; mam, Me, by becoming the originators of body etc. And me, for Me; na sprha, there is no hankering for the results of those actions. But in the case of transmigrating beings, who have self-identification in the form, 'I am the agent', and thirst for actions as also for their results, it is reasonable that actions should taint them. Owing to the absence of these, actions do not taint Me. Anyone else, too, yah, who; abhijanati, knows; mam, Me; iti, thus, as his own Self, and (knows), 'I am not an agent; I have no hankering for the results of actions'; sah, he; na badhyate, does not become bound; karmabhih, by actions. In his case also actions cease to be the originators of body etc. This is the import.

These actions of varied nature like creation etc., do not contaminate Me i.e., do not bind Me. For the distinctions of gods, men etc., are not brought about by Me, but by the particular Karmas, good and evil, of created beings. Therefore by the process of discriminating between the acired and the inherent, it will be found that I am not the author of this varied creations etc. The created or embodied selves, who are endowed with bodies and organs at the time of creation in accordance with their own Karmas springing from attachment to fruits etc., experience all enjoyments available in creation. Thus for them (embodied selves) alone there is desire for the results of creation etc., and for the results of their Karmas. There is no desire in Me for it.
The Sutrakara says to the same effect: 'No partiality or cruelty on account of there being dependence (on the Karma of souls for inealities' (Br. S., 2.1.34). Bhagavan Parasara also says so: 'He (the Lord) is only the operative cause in the creation of beings. That from which the creative forces spring constitutes the material cause. Leaving aside the material cause, the being that becomes embodied does not reire the help of any other thing whatever. A thing is led into the condition in which it is, O best of ascetics, only by its own potentiality' (V. P., 1.4.51-2). The Supreme Person is only the operative cause with regard to the creation of those to be created, i.e., the selves in the bodies of gods etc. The material cause for the differences into gods etc., is the potentiality in the form of previous Karmas of the selves to be created. Therefore, leaving aside the operative cause, i.e., the Supreme Person, the creator, the embodied beings do not reire anything else for causing difference into conditions of gods etc. For these selves are led to take the forms of gods etc., by the potentiality of their own old Karma with which they are connected. Such is the meaning.
He who knows Me thus to be the agent of creation etc., and still a non-agent, i.e., as one who has no desire for the results of the acts of creation etc., - such a person is not tied by previous actions, i.e., he is freed from the old Karmas which obstruct the undertaking of Karma Yoga by causing attachment to results. Such is the purport.