Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Shloka (Verse) 10

व्याख्या--'ब्रह्मण्याधाय कर्माणि'--शरीर, इन्द्रियाँ, मन, बुद्धि, प्राण आदि सब भगवान्के ही हैं, अपने हैं ही नहीं; अतः इनके द्वारा होनेवाली क्रियाओँको भक्तियोगी अपनी कैसे मान सकता है? इसलिये उसका यह भाव रहता है कि मात्र क्रियाएँ भगवान्के द्वारा ही हो रही हैं और भगवान्के लिये ही हो रही हैं; मैं तो निमित्तमात्र हूँ।भगवान् ही अपनी इन्द्रियोंके द्वारा आप ही सम्पूर्ण क्रियाएँ करते हैं--इस बातको ठीक-ठीक धारण करके सम्पूर्ण क्रियाओंके कर्तापनको भगवान्में ही मानना, यही उपर्युक्त पदोंका अर्थ है।शरीरादि वस्तुएँ अपनी हैं ही नहीं, प्रत्युत मिली हुई हैं और बिछुड़ रही हैं। ये केवल भगवान्के नाते, भगवत्प्रीत्यर्थ दूसरोंकी सेवा करनेके लिये मिली हैं। इन वस्तुओँपर हमारा स्वतन्त्र अधिकार नहीं है अर्थात् इनको अपने इच्छानुसार न तो रख सकते हैं, न बदल सकते हैं और न मरनेपर साथ ही ले जा सकते हैं। इसलिये इन शरीरादिको तथा इनसे होनेवाली क्रियाओँको अपनी मानना ईमानदारी नहीं है। अतः मनुष्यको ईमानदारीके साथ जिसकी ये वस्तुएँ हैं ,उसीकी अर्थात् भगवान्की मान लेनी चाहिये।सम्पूर्ण क्रियाओँ और पदार्थोंको कर्मयोगी 'संसार' के, ज्ञानयोगी 'प्रकृति' के और भक्तियोगी 'भगवान्' के अर्पण करता है। प्रकृति और संसार--दोनोंके ही स्वामी भगवान् हैं। अतः क्रियाओँ और पदार्थोंको भगवान्के अर्पण करना ही श्रेष्ठ है।

परंतु जो तत्त्वज्ञानी नहीं है और कर्मयोगमें लगा हुआ है ( यानी ) जो स्वामीके लिये कर्म करनेवाले नौकरकी भाँति मैं ईश्वरके लिये करता हूँ इस भावसे सब कर्मोंको ईश्वरमें अर्पण करके यहाँतक कि मोक्षरूप फलकी भी आसक्ति छोड़कर कर्म करता है। वह जैसे कमलका पत्ता जलमें रहकर भी उससे लिप्त नहीं होता वैसे ही पापोंसे लिप्त नहीं होता।

"Then, like the Knower, even the ignorant one should not engage in action, due to the possibility of being afflicted by sin"—anticipating this doubt, He says "Yastu" (But he who...) etc.

Just as a servant performs actions for the sake of the master and does not expect fruit for himself; similarly, the wise one (discriminating seeker) who, having abandoned attachment even to Liberation, performs all actions for the sake of the Lord alone, is not bound by his own action.

For indeed, a lotus leaf is not connected with (tainted by) water; it is like that—this is the meaning.

Thus, it was stated that for the Knower of Truth, there is no taint by worldly actions which are merely futile movements. Now, what is the path for the seeker of liberation who is not a Knower of Truth? Anticipating this, He says "Brahmani" (In Brahman). "Brahmani" meaning in the Supreme Lord; like a servant to the master, dedicating "I do this for Him"; abandoning "Sangam" (attachment) even in the fruit of liberation; he who performs all actions is not connected with sin, like a lotus leaf by water. Since even merit (Punya) is an obstacle for a seeker of liberation, "by sin" (Papena) is stated.

Others, however, interpret this verse as referring to the wise man (Vidvat). Thus: The taint/connection that belongs to the Knower of Truth—is it generated by natural activities of senses and body, or by scriptural activities of senses etc.? Having spoken regarding the first by the two (verses 8, 9), He speaks regarding the second with "Brahmani". Is that (taint) characterized by the unseen merit (Apurva) generated by those respective actions? Or is it characterized by the unseen sin (Durita) generated by acceptance of wealth etc. useful for those actions? Not the first—He says with "Brahmani" etc. In actions performed with the idea of offering to Brahman, there is no production of Apurva (merit); this is the idea. Not the second—He says with "Sangam tyaktva" (Abandoning attachment). "Sanga" meaning non-attachment to fruits like worldly wealth etc.; and thereby there is no production of unseen sin; this is the idea.

That (interpretation) is open to question/consideration. Because in performing action with the idea of offering to Brahman, the right belongs only to the seeker of liberation who is not a Knower of Truth; otherwise, there would be the contingency of inconsistency with the subsequent verse.

(Also) solving the doubt "And what are such actions which are capable of being performed without earning wealth and are for the purification of the mind?" by citing the conduct of the disciplined as proof for the practice of Karma Yoga with "Kayena" (By the body - 5.11)—and due to contradiction with his own (Sridhara's?) and other texts.

The rest, however, is to be accepted in accordance with the Bhashya; because by including all fruits in the fruit of liberation, and by preventing attachment to that, the Bhashyakara has prevented attachment to all fruits.

"And only he who is endowed with Sannyasa and Yoga is not tainted by action"—He says this with "Brahmani" (In Brahman...) etc.

The fruit is stated again and again in order to exclude (the notion of) the rule of means being merely figurative (Upachara).

"Brahmani" etc. Since the Knower, being unattached, is not tainted even while acting,

therefore even the non-knower (Avidvan), placing actions in "Brahman"—the Inner Controller of all—and dedicating them with the thought "He alone is the prompter of action, not I am the doer," he who performs actions is not tainted by sin, like a lotus leaf by water.

Here, by the word "Brahman," "Prakriti" (Material Nature) is meant. For it will be stated later, "My womb is the great Brahman (Mahad Brahma)" (Gita 14.3).

Placing actions in "Prakriti"—which is situated in the form of the senses, since the senses are specific transformations of Prakriti—in the manner stated by "Seeing, hearing," etc., abandoning attachment to the fruit, thinking "I do nothing at all"—he who performs actions;

he, though existing in contact with Prakriti, is not tainted by "sin"—which is the cause of bondage in the form of the pride of identifying the Self with Prakriti—like a lotus leaf by water. Just as a lotus leaf, though in contact with water, is not tainted, so is he not tainted—this is the meaning.

Then, for one who has the egoism 'I do,' the taint of action is difficult to avoid, and due to having an impure mind, Sannyasa also is not possible for him; thus a great crisis has arisen"—anticipating this doubt, He says "Brahmani" etc.

"Brahmani adhaya"—meaning offering to the Supreme Lord, and abandoning attachment to the fruit thereof, he who performs actions; he is not tainted by "sin"—by action consisting of merit and demerit, which is "most sinful" (Papishta) because it is the cause of bondage.

Just as a lotus leaf, though situated in water, is not tainted by water, so is it.

(Objection): "If so, even if action is performed with the desire for fruit, merely by the feeling 'I do nothing at all', there would be no defect in doing it? And if in reality agency belongs to oneself, what is the purpose of contemplating its 'adventitious nature' (being caused by conditions)? And even with such contemplation, the very contact with Prakriti would drown him in the delusion of body-as-Self?"—This doubt is refuted by the verse "Brahmani" etc.

Here, by the word "Brahman," the individual soul (Jiva) is not meant, because the context is the denial of its agency. Nor is the Supreme Brahman (Para Brahma) meant, because He is not required in the context of establishing the adventitious nature (of agency); and immediately after, by the verse "All actions... by the mind" (5.13), the imputation of agency to the body is stated. Therefore, since it is logical that it refers to the 'required locus' of the previously stated meaning, the word "Brahman" here refers to "Prakriti transformed into the form of senses." Indeed, the word Brahman is used even for the effect of Prakriti: "From this Brahman, name, form, and food are born" (Mundaka 1.1.9). Intending all this, (Ramanuja) said "Brahma-shabdena" (By the word Brahman...) etc. He cites the usage of the word Brahman for Prakriti from the Bhagavad Gita itself with "Mama yonih" (My womb...) etc.

(Objection): "Let the word Brahman refer to Prakriti, but what relevance does it have to the subject at hand?"—to this doubt, he states the sentence-meaning fortified by the meaning of the previous verse and logic—with "Indriyanam" (Of the senses...) etc. (Objection): "Due to the quality of 'greatness' (Brihatva) and the force of usage, let 'Mula-Prakriti' (Primordial Nature) be denoted by the word Brahman; but contemplating the agency of seeing, hearing, etc. therein is impossible, because the cause of that (specific agency) is absent in the form of Primordial Nature?"—to refute this doubt, it was said up to "Avasthitayam" (Situated in...). The purport is that even a figurative usage referring to the cause can denote the effect due to the unity of substance.

The plural "Karmani" (actions) refers to the diversity mentioned earlier—to show this, it was said "Pashyan shrinvan..." (Seeing, hearing...) etc., "in the manner stated." "Yah karoti" (He who does)—since this indicates agency in the Self itself, to remind of its 'adventitious nature' (Aupadhikatva), the previously stated "Naiva kinchit karomi" (I do nothing at all) is pulled in.

The word "Papa" (Sin) here refers to the delusion of body-as-Self. "He who understands the Self, which is existing one way, in another way—what sin has not been committed by that thief who steals the Self?" (Mahabharata 1.74.27)—in such texts, the 'sinfulness' of wrong knowledge of the Self is well-known; and in the context of contemplating the non-agency of the Self, it is appropriate to speak of the cessation of that (delusion)—with this intent, it was said "Prakrityatmabhimana..." (In the form of the pride of Self in Prakriti...). "Bandhahetuna" (By the cause of bondage...)—this illuminates the definition of sin there. Indeed, "Papa" is the extraordinary cause of supernatural undesirable results. And the word "Papa" is used in many senses, as in "Neither merit nor demerit (dushkrita); all sins (papmanah) turn back from it" (Chandogya 8.4.1).

(Objection): "How is a lotus leaf touched by water an example here (since it repels water)?"—to this he says "Yatha" (Just as...) etc. The example is not merely for the negation of contact; but rather—just as the birth, existence, etc. of the lotus leaf are entirely dependent on water, yet there is no affliction etc. caused by it; similarly, for this person whose experience and existence etc. are dependent on Prakriti, there should be no body-Self delusion etc. which are its (Prakriti's) effects—this is the purport.

दो पूर्ववर्ती श्लोकों में वर्णित ज्ञान ब्रह्म स्वरूप में रमे हुए तत्त्ववित् पुरुषों के लिये सत्य हो सकता है परन्तु निरहंकार और अनासक्ति का जीवन सर्व सामान्य जनों के लिये सुलभ नहीं होता। पूर्णत्व के साधकों को यही कठिनाई आती है। जो साधकगण गीता ज्ञान को जीना चाहते हैं और न कि तत्प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्तों की केवल चर्चा करना उनकी यही समस्या होती है कि किस प्रकार वे अहंकार का त्याग करें। इस समस्या का निराकरण विचाराधीन श्लोक में किया गया है जिसके द्वारा कोई भी अनासक्त जीवन व्यतीत कर सकता है। ब्रह्म में अर्पण करके मन का पूर्णतया अनासक्त होना असंभव है और यही तथ्य साधक लोग नहीं जानते। जब तक मन का अस्तित्त्व रहेगा तब तक वह किसीनकिसी वस्तु के साथ आसक्त रहेगा। इसलिये परमार्थ सत्य को पहचान कर उसके साथ तादात्म्य रखने का प्रयत्न करना ही मिथ्या वस्तुओं के साथ की आसक्ति को त्यागने का एकमात्र उपाय है। इस मनोवैज्ञानिक सत्य को दर्शाते हुए भगवान् उपदेश देते हैं कि सभी साधकों को ईश्वरार्पण बुद्धि से कर्म करने चाहिये। किसी आदर्श के निरन्तर स्मरण का अर्थ है मनुष्य का तत्स्वरूप ही बन जाना। जैसे अज्ञानदशा में हमें अहंकार का अखण्ड स्मरण बना रहता है वैसे ही ईश्वर का निरन्तर स्मरण रहने पर अहंकार का त्याग संभव हो सकता है। ईश्वर के अखण्ड चिन्तन से हम जीवभाव से ऊपर उठकर ईश्वर के साथ एकत्व का अनुभव कर सकते हैं।संक्षेप में आज हम जीवभाव में स्थित आत्मा हैं गीता का आह्वान है कि हम आत्मभाव में स्थित जीव बन जायें।एक बार अपने शुद्ध स्वरूप की पहचान हो जाने पर शरीर मन और बुद्धि के द्वारा किये गये कर्म किसी प्रकार की वासना उत्पन्न नहीं कर सकते। पाप और पुण्य कर्तृत्वाभिमानी जीव के लिये हैं आत्मा के लिये कदापि नहीं। दर्पण के कारण दिखाई दे रहे मेरे प्रतिबिम्ब की कुरूपता मेरी नहीं कही जा सकती। प्रतिबिम्ब का विकृत होना दर्पण की सतह के उत्तल या अवतल होने पर निर्भर करता है। इसी प्रकार पाप और पुण्य का बन्धन जीव को ही स्वकर्मानुसार होता है।आत्मसाक्षात्कार के पश्चात् ज्ञानी पुरुष देहादि उपाधियों के साथ विषयों के मध्य उसी प्रकार रहता है जैसे कमल का पत्ता जल में। यद्यपि कमल की उत्पत्ति पोषण स्थिति और नाश भी जल में ही होता है तथापि कमल पत्र जल से सदा अस्पर्शित रहता है। जल उसे गीला नहीं कर पाता। उसी प्रकार ही एक ज्ञानी सन्त पुरुष अन्य मनुष्यों के समान जगत् में निवास करता हुआ समस्त व्यवहार करता है और फिर भी पाप पुण्य रागद्वेष सुन्दरता कुरूपता आदि से कभी भी लिप्त नहीं होता।सामान्य कर्म को कर्मयोग में परिवर्तित करने के दो उपाय हैं (1) कर्तृत्व का त्याग और (2) फलासक्ति का त्याग। यहां प्रथम उपाय का वर्णन किया गया है। यह कोई अपरिचित नवीन या विचित्र सिद्धांत नहीं है। इसका हमें अपने जीवन में अनेक अवसरों पर अनुभव भी होता है। एक चिकित्सक आसक्ति के कारण अपनी पत्नी की शल्य क्रिया (आपरेशन) करने में स्वयं को असमर्थ पाता है परन्तु वही चिकित्सक उसी दिन उसी शल्य क्रिया को किसी अन्य रोगी पर कुशलतापूर्वक कर सकता है क्योंकि उस रोगी के साथ उसकी कोई आसक्ति नहीं होती।यदि मनुष्य स्वयं को ईश्वर का प्रतिनिधि अथवा सेवक समझकर कार्य करे तो वह स्वयं में ही उस प्रचण्ड सार्मथ्य एवं कार्यकुशलता को पायेगा जिन्हें वह वर्तमान में कर्तृत्वाभिमान के कारण व्यर्थ में खोये दे रहा है।इसलिये

Beginning with "yogayukta" up to "ātmasiddhaye". He whose Self has become the Self of all beings, even while doing everything, is not tainted, because he is established in the negation of non-action (akaraṇa). Therefore, even while performing actions like seeing, etc., he holds this view and determines with the firmness of understanding: "If the senses like the eye, etc., engage in their respective objects, what is that to me? Indeed, there is no tainting of one person by what is done by another."

This alone is the offering of actions into Brahman. Here, the sign of this is the state of being free from attachment. Therefore, he is not tainted.

And yogis perform actions with bodies, etc., that are isolate (kevala), free from attachment, and independent of each other, due to the absence of attachment.

An objection is raised: by the statement "yogayuktaḥ" (5.7), the fruit characterized by the non-tainting of action for one united in Sannyasa-yoga has already been stated; so why is the same stated again for him with "brahmaṇyādhāya" (placing in Brahman)? To this, he says "sannyāseti".

Here, a restrictive rule (niyama) is being made regarding what was stated before. The idea is that undertaking (the statement) again when it is already established is for the sake of restriction. And the meaning is also that the description of Yoga is slightly more detailed here.

Objection: But by the statement "sannyāsastu", the rule that 'Sannyasa and Yoga combined alone accomplish the result' is already obtained; then why is this repeated statement of the fruit—"for one united in sannyasa-yoga... even acting he is not tainted" (5.7) and "he is not tainted by sin"—made again and again? To this, he says "sādhaneti".

It means the statement refers to the rule regarding the means (sādhana). In the statement of the rule that 'Sannyasa and Yoga combined alone are the means to the fruit', there is a possibility of it being a figurative usage (upachāra) as in common worldly parlance. The meaning is that this (repetition) is for the purpose of removing that (possibility).

Then, the ignorant one would indeed be tainted due to the arrogance of doership, and in that case, how can he attain steadfastness in knowledge preceded by renunciation? To this, He answers:

He who performs actions—both worldly and Vedic—by "placing" (ādhāya), i.e., offering them "in Brahman" (brahmaṇi), i.e., in the Supreme Lord, and abandoning "attachment" (saṅgam), i.e., the desire for fruit, with the intention "I act for the sake of the Lord, just as a servant acts for the sake of the master, without expectation of personal fruit,"—he is not tainted "by sin" (pāpena), which implies action consisting of both merit and demerit.

Just as a lotus leaf is not tainted by water thrown upon it, similarly, action performed with the intellect of offering to God results only in the purification of the mind.

Having placed "attachment" (saṅgam) "in Brahman" (brahmaṇi), i.e., in the Supreme Person (Purushottama)—meaning remaining in the state of union (samyoga); or having abandoned attachment—meaning remaining in the state of separation (viprayoga)—he who performs even actions is not tainted by them.

Regarding this, He gives an example: "like a lotus leaf" (padmapatramiva).

Like a lotus leaf by water. The meaning is: just as it (the leaf), even while remaining in water, does not become tainted, so too is the case here.

Having "placed" (ādhāya), i.e., cast, (all actions) "in Brahman" (brahmaṇi), i.e., in the Lord—with the thought "I perform action for His sake," just as a servant acts for the sake of the master—he who performs all actions having abandoned "attachment" (saṅgam) even regarding the fruit of liberation (Moksha),

is not "tainted" (lipyate), i.e., not bound, "by sin" (pāpena); "like a lotus leaf by water" (ambhasā).

The fruit of that action would be merely the purification of the mind (sattva-śuddhi) alone.

And this sage is not merely a follower of the Sāṅkhya path, due to the absence of renunciation of action (karma-sannyāsa), but rather a knower of truth (tattvavit) on the path of Yoga, because of the performance of action—this He distinguishes with "in Brahman" (brahmaṇi).

Here, the word 'Brahman' denotes the subject of Brahma-yajña (sacrifice to Brahman), and contemplating that actions are being performed by oneself in that very (Brahman)—thus the state of 'non-duality of action' (kriyā-dvaita) is stated.

And abandoning "attachment" in actions—i.e., the desire for fruit and the sense of mine-ness—the Yogi who acts, he, having attained that, a knower of Brahman and liberated while living (jīvanmukta), does not become embraced "by sin"—i.e., by the sin of omission (akaraṇa-pratyavāya)—like a lotus leaf by water.

ब्रह्मणि in Brahman? आधाय having placed? कर्माणि actions? सङ्गम् attachment? त्यक्त्वा having abandoned? करोति acts? यः who? लिप्यते is tainted? न not? सः he? पापेन by sin? पद्मपत्रम् lotusleaf? इव like? अम्भसा by water.Commentary Chapter IV verses 18? 20? 21? 22? 23? 37? 41 Chapter V verses 10? 11 and 12 all convey the one idea that the Yogi who does actions without egoism and attachment to results or fruits of the actions? which he regards as offerings unto the Lord? is not tainted by the actions (Karma). He has no attachment even for Moksha. He sees inaction in action. All his actions are burnt in the fire of wisdom. He escapes from the wheel of Samsara. He is freed from the round of births and deaths. He gets purity of heart and through purity of heart attains to the knowledge of the Self. Through the knowledge of the Self he is liberated. This is the gist of the above ten verses. (Cf.III.30)

On the other hand, again, one who is ignorant of the Truth and is engaged in Karma-yoga, yah, who; karoti, acts; adhaya, by dedicating, by surrendering; all karmani, actions; brahmani, to Brahman, to God; with the idea, 'I am working for Him, as a servant does everything for his master', and tyaktva, by renouncing; sangam, attachment, even with regard to teh resulting Liberation; sah, he; na lipyate, does not get polluted, is not affected; papena, by sin; iva, just as; padma-patram, a lotus leaf; is not ambhasa, by water.
The only result that will certainly accrue from such action will be the purification of the heart.

Here the term, Brahman denotes Prakrti. Later on Sri Krsna will say: 'The great Brahman is My womb' (14.3). Since Prakrti abides in the form of senses which are particular off-shoots of Prakrti, he who, as said in the passage beginning with 'Even though he is seeing, hearing ৷৷.' (5.8), understands that all actions proceed from Brahman (Prakrti); renounces all attachment while engaging himself in all actions, reflecting, 'I am doing nothing.' Such a person, though existing in contact with Prakrti, is not contaminated by sin which is the result of the wrong identification of the Atman with Prakrti and is the cause of bondage. Just as a lotus leaf is not wetted by water, actions do not affect or defile a person with sin, if he is free from such identification with the body.