Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Shloka (Verse) 13

व्याख्या--'वशी देही'--इन्द्रियाँ, मन, बुद्धि आदिमें ममता-आसक्ति होनेसे ही ये मनुष्यपर अपना अधिकार जमाते हैं। ममता-आसक्ति न रहनेपर ये स्वतः अपने वशमें रहते हैं। सांख्ययोगीकी इन्द्रियाँ, मन, बुद्धि आदिमें ममता-आसक्ति न रहनेसे ये सर्वथा उसके वशमें रहते हैं। इसलिये यहाँ उसे 'वशी' कहा गया है।
जबतक किसी भी मनुष्यका प्रकृतिके कार्य (शरीर, इन्द्रियों आदि) के साथ किञ्चिन्मात्र भी कोई प्रयोजन रहता है, तबतक वह प्रकृतिके 'अवश' अर्थात् वशीभूत रहता है--'कार्यते ह्यवशः कर्म सर्वः प्रकृतिजैर्गुणैः' (गीता 3। 5)। प्रकृति सदैव क्रियाशील रहती है। अतः प्रकृतिसे सम्बन्ध बना रहनेके कारण मनुष्य कर्मरहित हो ही नहीं सकता। परन्तु प्रकृतिके कार्य स्थूल, सूक्ष्म और कारण--तीनों शरीरोंसे ममता-आसक्तिपूर्वक कोई सम्बन्ध न होनेसे सांख्ययोगी उनकी क्रियाओंका कर्ता नहीं बनता। यद्यपि सांख्ययोगीका शरीरके साथ किञ्चिन्मात्र भी सम्बन्ध नहीं होता, तथापि लोगोंकी दृष्टिमें वह शरीरधारी ही दीखता है। इसलिये उसे 'देही'कहा गया है।

परंतु जो यथार्थ ज्ञानी है वह ( वशी जितेन्द्रिय पुरुष ) समस्त कर्मोंको मनसे छोड़कर अर्थात् नित्य नैमित्तिक काम्य और निषिद्ध इन सब कर्मोंको कर्मादिमें अकर्मदर्शनरूप विवेकबुद्धिके द्वारा त्यागकर सुखपूर्वक स्थित हो जाता है। मन वाणी और शरीरकी चेष्टाको छोड़कर परिश्रमरहित प्रसन्नचित्त और आत्मासे अतिरिक्त अन्य सब बाह्य प्रयोजनोंसे निवृत्त हुआ ( वह ) सुखपूर्वक स्थित होता है ऐसे कहा जाता है। वशी जितेन्द्रिय पुरुष कहाँ और कैसे रहता है सो कहते हैं नौ द्वारवाले पुरमें रहता है। अभिप्राय यह कि दो कान दो नेत्र दो नासिका और एक मुख शब्दादि विषयोंको उपलब्ध करनेके ये सात द्वार शरीरके ऊपरी भागमें हैं और मलमूत्रका त्याग करनेके लिये दो नीचेके अङ्गमें हैं इन नौ द्वारोंवाला शरीर पुर कहलाता है। शरीर भी एक पुरकी भाँति पुर है जिसका स्वामी आत्मा है उस आत्माके लिये ही जिनके सब प्रयोजन हैं एवं जो अनेक फल और विज्ञानके उत्पादक हैं उन इन्द्रिय मन बुद्धि और विषयरूप पुरवासियोंसे जो युक्त है उस नौ द्वारवाले पुरमें देही सब कर्मोंको छोड़कर रहता है। पू0 इस विशेषणसे क्या सिद्ध हुआ संन्यासी हो चाहे असंन्यासी सभी जीव शरीरमें ही रहते हैं। इस स्थलमें विशेषण देना व्यर्थ है। उ0 जो अज्ञानी जीव शरीर और इन्द्रियोंके संघातमात्रको आत्मा माननेवाले हैं। वे सब घरमें भूमिपर या आसनपर बैठता हूँ ऐसे ही माना करते हैं क्योंकि देहमात्रमें आत्मबुद्धियुक्त अज्ञानियोंको घरकी भाँति शरीरमें रहता हूँ यह ज्ञान होना सम्भव नहीं। परंतु देहादिसंघातसे आत्मा भिन्न है ऐसा जाननेवाले विवेकीको मैं शरीरमें रहता हूँ यह प्रतीति हो सकती है। तथा निर्लेप आत्मामें अविद्यासे आरोपित जो परकीय ( देहइन्द्रियादिके ) कर्म हैं उनका विवेकविज्ञानरूप विद्याद्वारा मनसे संन्यास होना भी सम्भव है। जिससे विवेकविज्ञान उत्पन्न हो गया है ऐसे सर्वकर्मसंन्यासीका भी घरमें रहनेकी भाँति नौ द्वारवाले शरीररूप पुरमें रहना प्रारब्धकर्मोंके अवशिष्ट संस्कारोंकी अनुवृत्तिसे बन सकता है क्योंकि शरीरमें ही प्रारब्धफलभोगका विशेष ज्ञान होना सम्भव है। अतः ज्ञानी और अज्ञानीकी प्रतीतिके भेदकी अपेक्षासे देहे एव आस्ते इस विशेषणका फल अवश्य ही है। यद्यपि कार्य करण और कर्म जो अविद्यासे आत्मामें आरोपित हैं उन्हें छोड़कर रहता है ऐसा कहा है तथापि आत्मासे नित्य सम्बन्ध रखनेवाले कर्तापन और करानेकी प्रेरकता ये दोनों भाव तो उस ( आत्मा ) में रहेंगे ही। इस शङ्कापर कहते हैं स्वयं न करता हुआ और शरीरइन्द्रियादिसे न करवाता हुआ अर्थात् उनको कर्मोंमें प्रवृत्त न करता हुआ ( रहता है )। पू0 जैसे गमन करनेवालेकी गति गमनरूप व्यापारका त्याग करनेसे नहीं रहती वैसे ही आत्मामें जो कर्तृत्व और कारयितृत्व हैं वह क्या आत्माके नित्य सम्बन्धी होते हुए ही संन्याससे नहीं रहते अथवा स्वभावसे ही आत्मामें नहीं हैं उ0 आत्मामें कर्तृत्व और कारयितृत्व स्वभावसे ही नहीं हैं क्योंकि यह आत्मा विकाररहित कहा जाता है। हे कौन्तेय यह आत्मा शरीरमें स्थित हुआ भी न करता है और न लिप्त होता है। ऐसा कह चुके हैं एवं ध्यान करता हुआसा क्रिया करता हुआसा। इस श्रुतिसे भी यही सिद्ध होता है।

"Tarhi..." Then, if action implies abandoning attachment to fruit and must be performed by everyone, is there no scope for Renunciation of Action (Karma-sannyasa)? Anticipating this doubt, He shows the distinction of the Knower from the ignorant one with "but who" (yastu). "Sarvakarma..." He dispels the notion that death is attained upon the renunciation of all actions with "sits/remains" (āste). "(जीवन) वृत्ति को प्राप्त करता हुआ भी (क्या) वह आध्यात्मिक आदि शारीरिक ताप से तप्त होता हुआ बैठता है? अगर ऐसा है तो नहीं—कहते हैं "सुखम्" (सुखपूर्वक). "Kāryakaraṇa..." He negates subjection to the assemblage of the body and senses with "self-controlled" (vaśī). "Asanasya..." He specifies the required locus for sitting with "in the nine..." (nave), etc. "Dehasambandha..." He refers to the one possessing the semblance of identification with the connection to the body as "the embodied one" (dehī).

"Manasā..." Even if there is renunciation of all actions mentally, all actions must be performed externally for the welfare of the world—refuting this derived idea, He says "neither" (naiva), etc. "Tānyeva..." He specifies those very actions which are to be renounced with "obligatory..." (nityam), etc. He states the reason for their renunciation with "those" (tāni). "Yaduktaṁ..." He justifies what was said—that 'he sits happily'—with "having renounced" (tyaktvā), etc.

'Control of senses' is a synecdoche for the control of the body as well. "Dve śrotre..." Two ears, two eyes, two nostrils, and one speech (mouth)—these seven are in the head, the gates for the perception of sound, etc. Still, how is there the state of having nine gates? Including the two below, the anus and the generative organ, He answers with "downwards" (arvāk). "Śarīrasya..." He shows the body's resemblance to a city—being presided over by a master and citizens—with "like..." (āma), etc.

"Yadyapi..." Although, due to life being in the body, he remains possessing the semblance of identification with the body connection, yet, just as a traveler in another's house remains neither delighted nor dejected by honor or insult there and is devoid of delusion, etc.—thinking thus, He says "in that" (tasmin).

"Viśeṣaṇam..." He objects to the adjective (qualifier)—"why" (kim), etc. He shows its illogicality with "for everyone" (sarvo hi). Since residing in the body is common to all, the qualification 'the wise one sits in the body having renounced' is futile—He states this conclusion with "there" (tatra). "Viśeṣaṇaphalaṁ..." Showing the purpose of the qualification, He answers with "it is said" (ucyate). Is the futility of the adjective raised regarding the undiscriminating or the discriminating one? Creating this option, He accepts the first with "but who" (yastu). Ignorance is the cause of being an 'embodied one' (dehī). He clarifies that very state of being embodied with "body" (deha). "Saṅghāta..." Can there be an appearance of staying in the body even for one who views the aggregate (body-mind) as the Self? He says no with "not indeed" (nahi). "Dvitīyaṁ..." He refutes the second (option) with "body, etc." (dehādi). To exclude the delusion of the Self's abiding (inherently) due to the body's abiding in houses, etc., the qualification "the wise one sits in the body" is appropriate, because for the discriminating one, the appearance of abiding in the body is possible; this is the meaning.

"Nanu..." (Objection): But even if the appearance of abiding in the body exists for the discriminating one, since actions which are the activities of speech, mind, and body have no connection with him, how can his "abiding in the body" be stated through the renunciation of those? To this, He says "and of others' actions" (parakarmaṇāṁ ca). "Nanu..." (Objection): How can one who considers himself as Brahman—limitless by direction, etc., exterior and interior, and immutable—accept abiding in the body? To this, He says "arisen" (utpanna). "Tatra..." He states the reason for that with "prārabdha" (operative karma). If the operative karma is of the nature of merit and demerit, then from the remainder of that enjoyed karma which is yet unenjoyed, the impression (samskāra) of the body, etc., continues. And due to that continuation, a specific cognition regarding 'abiding' in that very body is justifiable. Therefore, the designation of abiding in the body is possible for the discriminating Renunciate.

"Avidvat..." He concludes that although the qualification is not possible relative to the cognition of the ignorant, it is meaningful relative to the cognition of the wise—with "in the body alone" (deha eva). The wise man's cognition has his own abiding in the body as its object, and the ignorant man's cognition does not have that as its object (as he identifies as the body); given this difference between the two, the qualification is meaningful relative to the wise man's cognition—concluding thus, He clarifies the reason with "knowing" (vidvat).

"Āropita..." Even if superimposed doership is absent, inherent doership in the Self is unavoidable—translating this doubt, He refutes it with "although" (yadyapi), etc. "Kriyāsu..." "Remains causing (senses) to engage in actions"—this is connected with the preceding. The preceding present participle (śatṛ - 'kurvan'/'kārayan') is also connected in the same way. "Kartṛtvaṁ..." He examines the point that doership and causership do not belong to the Self with "what" (kim). Is that doership and causership existent in the Embodied One by inherent relation (samavāya) and ceases due to Renunciation—just as the motion inherent in walking Devadatta ceases by his stopping? Or is it that naturally doership and causership do not belong to the Self? In the first case, mutability (sakriyatva) would result; in the second, immutability (kūṭasthatva). "Dvitīyaṁ..." Adopting the second view, He answers with "here" (atra). He aligns the commencement of the sentence with the stated meaning with "it is said indeed" (uktaṁ hi). He also shows the agreement of the remainder of the sentence in that very context with "even while staying in the body" (śarīrastho'pi). He also shows a Vedic text (Śruti) for the meaning stated in the Smṛti with "as if thinking" (dhyāyatīva). The meaning is that all modification belongs only to the limiting adjunct (upādhi) and does not exist in the Self by itself.

Thus, it has been established that for the ignorant one with an impure mind, Karma-yoga is superior to Renunciation (Sannyasa). In response to the expectation—"How does the seer of the Supreme Reality, possessing a pure mind, remain?"—He says "all" (sarva), etc.

"All actions" (sarvāṇi)—meaning obligatory (nitya), incidental (naimittika), desire-prompted (kāmya), and prohibited (pratiṣiddha)—having renounced them well "by the mind" (manasā), i.e., by the intellect of discrimination (viveka-buddhi), through seeing non-action in action, etc.; he "sits happily" (sukham āste), due to the cessation of all activities that are the causes of suffering. Because he is "self-controlled" (vaśī). Where does he sit? To this, He says "in the nine-gated city." Two ears, two eyes, two nostrils, and the mouth—these seven are in the head; two are below for the discharge of urine and feces. Thus, in the city endowed with nine gates—which is like a town, where the Self alone is the Master, the senses are servants, the intellect is the minister, the ego is the crown prince, and the mind is the artisan—he sits in the city presided over by citizens in the form of senses, etc. Because he is "embodied" (dehī)—meaning he is a seer of the Self as distinct from the body, etc. But he who is ignorant is a seer of the body as the Self and sits in "a house," etc.; therefore, the qualification (dehī) is appropriate.

"Even if this is so, still, due to inherence in the Self, doership and causership might belong to him?" To this, He says: "neither acting" (naiva kurvan) himself "nor causing to act" (na kārayan)—meaning not inciting the body and senses into actions—thus is the connection. (Refutation of another view): Now, regarding the interpretation others make: "The relation is—the 'self-controlled one' (vaśī), i.e., endowed with discrimination and dispassion, 'sits happily' in the 'nine-gated city', i.e., the human body. Although the bodies of dogs, cats, etc., also have nine gates, still, due to the connection with the word 'vaśī', the human body is obtained. 'Happily' (sukham) is an adverb; by this, modifications of the inner instrument (antaḥkaraṇa) like joy and grief are rejected. In 'vaśī', by the mention of dispassion, the modifications of the inner instrument in the form of desire—which is a synonym for attachment, etc.—and its specific state, anger, are warded off. And by the mention of discrimination (viveka), having rejected egoism, the superimposition of mine-ness based on it, and the modification of the mind in the form of worry, the abiding of the intellect in the form of pure consciousness is stated. And thus, the result of the intellect as pure consciousness alone is stated by the word 'vaśī' in conclusion.

Having done what? To this, they say: having renounced all actions 'along with the mind' (manasā saha); by the abandonment (of mind), knowledge is also implied; thus, having renounced and known the Self, he sits happily—this is how it should be understood. They qualify 'vaśī' as 'bodiless' (a-dehī)—meaning devoid of the subtle body (linga-śarīra)." — (Critique): This interpretation is not correct. Their intention is: The Person (Puruṣa) consists of sixteen parts. There, the elements, senses, and vital forces are the things to be incited. The inciter is the inner instrument. And that is so because of the planning nature of the intellect. For everyone acts after determining with the intellect and resolving with the mind. There, if by the abandonment of the mind, the abandonment of special knowledge (vijñāna) and action is possible, then where does the subtle body remain now? Indeed, when the head is cut off, the trunk does not attain the state of a body; therefore, "by the mind" (manasā) was stated (in the verse). But others explained that the intellect, by renouncing all forms, has merged into Pure Consciousness alone, and since egoism, etc., have been uprooted by discrimination, what to speak of them?

Regarding this, the following must be said: Even without the connection of the word 'vaśī', the human body is obtained simply by the connection with "all actions" (sarvakarmāṇi), etc., and by the context. By the phrase "having renounced all actions," the abandonment of mental actions in the form of thinking of prohibited things, etc., establishes the 'abandonment of mind'; and since a 'means' (karaṇa) for renunciation is required, it is inconsistent to supply the word 'with' (saha) and describe the abandonment of the mind separately. Moreover, the abandonment of the mind is accompanied by discrimination; therefore, "having renounced all actions 'by the mind' (manasā) endowed with discrimination" is alone proper. By this, the description of being endowed with discrimination and dispassion by the word 'vaśī' is also refuted. Because 'vaśī' denotes independence, and through the cognition of 'control of senses', the other stated meanings become implied meanings. And that which was said—"'a-dehī' means devoid of the subtle body"—that too is not correct. Because of the suffix 'ini' (in 'dehī') which denotes distinction, the description "one who sees the Self as other than the body" has a natural connection with "sits in the nine-gated city"; therefore, forcing a difficult construction by splitting the words (praśleṣa) is unjustifiable. Having kept this very dissatisfaction in mind, another view was shown by the authors of this explanation... etc.

And also, that which was said at the end (by the opponent): "'Vaśī' means a Yogi established in Samadhi who has conquered the mind; 'nine-gated' means exactly nine—five organs of knowledge, the sixth is Prana by which the organs of action incited by it are included, (plus) Buddhi, Ahankara, and Chitta—these are the nine. Like gates, these are the places of entry of objects for the enjoyment of the Jiva, the Lord of the City. In this 'nine-gated city' called the body, possessing infinite objects created by diverse latent impressions (vasanas), presided over by many ministers in the form of actions, containing various merchandise like pleasure and pain—having renounced all actions 'along with the mind' (manasā saha)—which is the key to opening all gates—just as a City-Lord renounces state affairs, he sits happily in the form of indeterminate pure consciousness alone." — That too is indeed inconsistent. While the 'conquest' of the mind in the form of the restraint of modifications is expected, the 'abandonment' of the other (the mind itself) like the abandonment of clothes, etc., is not well-known; thus, describing it by supplying the word "with" (saha) alongside "manasā" is plagued by repetition. Also, since the "city" exists even in a dead body, but the "gates" described by the opponent are absent (then), saying "in which nine-gated (city)" becomes inappropriate. Also, for one established in indeterminate Samadhi (nirvikalpa-samādhi), since the gates for the reception of enjoyment are dissolved, even the mere awareness "I am distinct from the body" is absent; thus, the statement "sits in the nine-gated city" would become futile. This is the direction (of the argument).

Again, He clarifies the meaning of the word "Sannyasa" with "all actions" (sarvakarmāṇi).

By the qualification "by the mind" (manasā), the abandonment of identification/arrogance (abhimāna) is implied.

Thus, it has been stated that the ignorant one is bound or not bound by actions due to attachment or non-attachment to fruit. But the wise one is the opposite of that—He states with "all actions" (sarvakarmāṇi), etc. "Vaśī" (Self-controlled) means one who has conquered the mind, a Yogi established in Samadhi. In the "nine-gated" (navadvāre)—the nine are indeed the five organs of knowledge, the sixth is Prāṇa (vital force)—by strictly that, the organs of action incited by it are included; (plus) Buddhi (intellect), Ahankara (ego), and Chitta (mind-stuff)—these are the nine. These are like gates, the places of entry of objects for the enjoyment of the Jiva, the Lord of the City. In the "city" named the body possessing these nine gates—which contains infinite objects created by diverse latent impressions (vasanas), is presided over by many ministers in the form of actions, and contains various merchandise like pleasure and pain—having renounced all actions "along with the mind" (manasā saha)—which is the key to opening all gates—just as a City-Lord renounces state affairs, he sits happily in the form of indeterminate pure consciousness alone.

Since actions are the properties of the Field (Kshetra) alone and not of the Self, they are indeed capable of being renounced in the Field. And such is the scriptural text (Śruti): "Having left sins in the body..." Also, "Where the good-hearted and the meritorious rejoice, having left the disease in their own body." "Being embodied" (dehī san) means at the time of identification with the body; meaning even in the state of rising from Samadhi (vyutthāna). Even then, he remains neither acting nor causing to act—like a King who has placed the burden on his ministers. Because in Samadhi, the absence of connection of the Self with the Field is observed.

Alternatively—the "nine gates" are the pairs of holes of eyes, ears, and nostrils (six), the seventh is the mouth, and the two below. In this view, one should infer that the senses are servants, the intellect is the minister, the ego is the crown prince, etc. For the wise, there is no connection with action at all; so attachment or non-attachment to its fruit is a far-off matter—this is the idea.

This doership of actions belonging to the Self is prompted by the connection with the body rooted in ancient Karma; it is not prompted by Its essential nature (svarūpa)—with the mind (manasā) having this discrimination as its object, having renounced all actions in the "nine-gated city," the "self-controlled embodied one" (vaśī dehī) sits "happily" (sukham)—Himself not making the effort to support the body and "not indeed causing" (na eva kārayan) the body to act.

Now, He states the direct natural form of the Self...

Thus far, it has been expounded in detail that for one devoid of mental purity, Karma-yoga is superior to Renunciation (Sannyasa). Now, He states that for one of pure mind, Renunciation is superior, with "all actions" (sarvakarmāṇi), etc.

"Vaśī" means one with a controlled mind. Having renounced "all actions"—meaning distracting actions—"by the mind" endowed with discrimination, he sits in such a way that there is "happiness," being established in knowledge.

Where does he sit? To this, He says—"In the nine-gated..." Eyes, nostrils, ears, and mouth—these seven are in the head; and two are below in the form of the anus and the generative organ—in that "city" in which there are thus nine gates; i.e., in the body which is devoid of the sense of ego (ahambhāva) like a city (which has no ego), the "embodied one" (dehī) resides.

Solely due to the absence of egoism (ahankara), he himself is "not acting at all" through that body, and due to the absence of mine-ness (mamakara), he is "not causing to act"—thus the distinction from the one of impure mind is stated. For the impure-minded one, having renounced, acts again and causes to act. But this one is not like that. Therefore, he "sits happily"; this is the meaning.

He states the summarized meaning of the section from "I do nothing at all" (5.8) up to "attached to fruit, he is bound" (5.12) and its connection to the subsequent verse with the word "Therefore" (atah) [in Ramanuja's commentary]. He states the meaning of the immediate verse with "Now" (atha). After stating the renunciation of doership regarding the senses and vital forces dependent on the body, now the renunciation of doership regarding the body itself, which is their support, is stated—this is the connection.

To show the operation of the "mind"—which is mentioned as the instrument for the renunciation of doership in the body—that is suitable to its status as an instrument, "of the Self..." (ātmanaḥ) etc., was said [in the Bhashya]. Indeed, doership of merit and sin is not caused merely by the connection with bodies like gods, etc., because that connection exists even for the one not subject to Karma [like the Lord]; therefore, "rooted in ancient Karma" was said.

Here, the state of having nine gates is due to the seven main ones (in the head) and the two below; but in the Sruti "The city of eleven gates" (Katha Up. 2.5.1), the mention of eleven gates includes the navel and the aperture in the crown (brahmarandhra).

"Renouncing in the city"—the idea is that construing the city merely as the locus (location) of the action of renunciation is not useful to the context [the point is attributing actions to the body]. The designation "nine-gated city" is for the purpose of demonstrating the discrimination between the Body and the Self through [attributes like] having parts vs. partless, having holes vs. hole-less, grossness vs. atomic nature, dependence vs. independence, and being controlled vs. controller, etc.

"Himself" (svayam)—means free from dependence on the body, etc.; or, the idea is: in his own pure form. "Controlled" (vaśī)—means not being the object of the force of arrogance (identification).

Since being the locus of effort and the cause of bodily movement are due to limiting adjuncts (aupādhika), "neither acting..." etc., was said. "Sits happily"—means he sits devoid of the suffering, etc., caused by the pride of doership.

Indeed, well-being (svāsthyam) comes to one who views the body like a "city," the senses like "citizens," the Supreme Self like the "Emperor," and his own self like a "servant." For in the delusion of body-as-Self, one thinks "I am sitting in the city," etc.; but upon the cessation of that, the body becomes merely like a city (objective location), this is the idea.

जगत् से पलायन करना संन्यास नहीं है। मिथ्या धारणाओं एवं अविवेकपूर्ण आसक्तियों का त्याग ही वास्तविक संन्यास है। जिस पुरुष की सम्पूर्ण इन्द्रियाँ एवं मन की प्रवृत्तियाँ स्वयं के वश में हैं और जिसके कर्म अहंकार और स्वार्थ से रहित होते हैं उसे ही अनिर्वचनीय आनन्द परम संतोष प्राप्त होता है। तब वह सुखपूर्वक शरीर रूपी नवद्वार नगरी में निवास करता है।नवद्वारयुक्त नगरी का रूपक उपनिषदों में प्रसिद्ध है। शरीर को उस नगरी के समान माना गया है जो प्राचीन काल में किलों की प्राचीर के अन्दर बसायी गयी होता थी। इस शरीर रूपी नगरी के नवद्वार हैं दो आँखें दो नासिका छिद्र दो कान मुँह जननेन्द्रिय तथा गुदेन्द्रिय। इस शरीर में जीवन व्यापार सुचारु रूप से चलने के लिए इनमें से समस्त अथवा अधिकांश द्वारों का होना आवश्यक है। जैसे एक राजा किले में रहकर अपने मंत्रियों द्वारा शासन करता है तब उसकी परिस्थिति मात्र से अधिकारीगण प्रेरणाशक्ति और अनुमति प्राप्त कर अपनाअपना कार्य करते है इसी प्रकार चैतन्य आत्मा स्वयं अकर्ता रहते हुये भी उसके केवल सान्निध्य से समस्त ज्ञानेन्द्रयाँ एवं कर्मेन्द्रियां स्वव्यापार मे व्यस्त रहती हैं।इस प्रसिद्ध रूपक का प्रयोग करते हुए श्रीकृष्ण कहते हैं कि संयमी एवं तत्त्वदर्शी पुरुष शरीर में सुख से रहते हुए उपाधियों के कार्य देखता रहता है परन्तु स्वयं न कर्म करता है और न उपाधियों से करवाता है।और

"All" (sarva), etc. Just as for a man situated inside a house, there is no connection with the dilapidation, etc., pertaining to the house;

similarly, for me, situated in the "house of the body" adorned with nine windows (gavākṣa) in the form of holes like eyes, etc., there is no connection with its (the body's) properties (dharma).

To prevent the understanding that "all actions" (sarvakarmāṇi) means the abandonment of action in its essential form (literal cessation), he states the subject matter with "Again" (punar), etc. Previously, the abandonment of the pride of doership was stated; now, the abandonment of the pride of causing others to act is also clarified—this is the explanation.

He refutes the view that literal abandonment of action is being stated, with the word "by the mind" (manasā). Otherwise, that word would be futile, this is the idea.

Having expanded on the previously stated point that Karma-yoga is better than mere Renunciation for one with an impure mind, He now states that for one with a pure mind, the Renunciation of all actions alone is superior.

"All actions"—i.e., obligatory, incidental, desire-prompted, and prohibited—having renounced them "by the mind," i.e., by the right vision of the non-doer nature of the Self as stated in "He who sees inaction in action..." (Gita 4.18); he "remains" (āste) indeed, under the influence of Prārabdha karma.

Is it with sorrow? No, He says "happily" (sukham), i.e., effortlessly, due to the absence of the activities of body, speech, and mind which are the causes of strain.

Why do the body, speech, and mind not act arbitrarily? To this, He says "self-controlled" (vaśī)—one who has brought the aggregate of the body and senses under his control. Where does he sit? "In the nine-gated city." Two ears, two eyes, two nostrils, and one speech (mouth)—these seven in the head; and two named anus and generative organ below—in the body distinguished by these nine gates.

The "embodied one" (dehī)—one who sees the Self as distinct from the body—remains like a traveler in another's house, neither rejoicing nor dejected by honor or insult there, devoid of egoism and mine-ness. For the ignorant one, due to the arrogant identification with the body, is the body itself, not an "embodied one" (dweller in the body). And he, considering the locus of the body as the locus of the Self, arrogantly thinks "I sit in the house, on the ground, or on a seat," but not "I sit in the body," due to the absence of the vision of difference. But the renunciate of all actions, who sees the Self as distinct from the aggregate, understands "I sit in the body" due to the vision of difference. Therefore, the very negation (sublation) by Knowledge (Vidyā) of the activities of the body, etc., which were superimposed on the Self by Ignorance (Avidyā), is called the 'Renunciation of all actions'. Because of this very distinction from the ignorant, the qualification "sits in the nine-gated city" is appropriate.

"Nanu" (Objection): Even if the activities of the body, etc., superimposed on the Self—like the movement of a boat (superimposed) on trees on the bank—are negated by Knowledge, still, doership due to His own activity and causership regarding the activities of the body, etc., might exist? He says no—the connection is "he remains... neither acting nor causing to act."

Thus, it was stated (previously) that a devotee of the Lord, performing action by the Lord's command, attains happiness, whereas the ununited (non-devotee), performing action with the desire for fruit, becomes bound.

In that context, lest Arjuna gets the false impression in his mind that 'for a non-devotee, total renunciation of action alone is best', He states that even in renunciation, happiness belongs only to devotees, not to others—with "all actions" (sarvakarmāṇi), etc.

"Vaśī" (Self-controlled) means situated under the control of the Lord. Having renounced, i.e., abandoned, all actions; in the "nine-gated city," i.e., the body capable of instruments like hearing, etc.; the "embodied one" (dehī)—possessing identification with the body for the sake of the Lord—"remains" (āste) happily.

"Neither acting with the mind"—meaning, due to the absence of selfish ego, doing nothing at all. "Nor causing to act"—meaning, due to the absence of mine-ness, not causing others... to perform philanthropy, instruction, etc.—he sits happily; this is the idea.

"All actions" (sarvāṇi karmāṇi)—having renounced, i.e., completely abandoned "all actions," i.e., obligatory, incidental, desire-prompted, and prohibited actions; "by the mind" (manasā), i.e., by the discriminating intellect, through the perception of inaction in action, etc., having completely renounced them—this is the meaning; he "remains" (āste), i.e., stays "happily" (sukham). One who has abandoned the efforts of speech, mind, and body, who is effortless, whose mind is tranquil, and for whom all external purposes other than the Self have ceased—he is said to "sit happily." "Vaśī" means one who has conquered the senses.

Where and how does he sit? He says—"In the nine-gated city." Seven are in the head, which are gates for the perception of the Self (sensory knowledge), and two are below for the purpose of discharging urine and feces; by these gates, the body is called the "nine-gated city." It is a "city" like a (real) city; having the Self as its sole Master; and presided over by "citizens" in the form of senses, mind, intellect, and objects, which serve His purpose and produce the specific knowledge of various fruits.

In that nine-gated city, the "embodied one" (dehī) sits, having renounced all action. (Objection): What is the use of this qualification? For every embodied being, whether a renunciate or a non-renunciate, resides in the body alone; therefore, the qualification is meaningless there. (Answer): It is said (in reply): The ignorant embodied one looks upon the mere aggregate of the body and senses as the Self; he thinks "I am sitting in the house, on the ground, or on a seat." Indeed, for one who sees the mere body as the Self, the cognition "I am sitting in the body like in a house" is not possible. But for one who sees the Self as distinct from the aggregate of the body, etc., the cognition "I am sitting in the body" is justifiable. And the renunciation "by the mind"—through Knowledge (Vidyā) or discriminative wisdom—of the actions of the 'other' (non-Self) which were superimposed on the Supreme Self by Ignorance (Avidyā), is justifiable. Even for the renouncer of all actions in whom discriminative knowledge has arisen, the "sitting" is indeed in the body—like in a house—due to the continuation of the remainder of impressions of Karma that has begun to bear fruit (Prārabdha), because specific cognition (of existence) arises in the body alone. Therefore, "he sits in the body alone"—this qualification indeed has a purpose, as it relies on the difference between the cognition of the wise and the ignorant.

(Objection): Although it has been said that he sits having renounced the actions of the body and senses which were superimposed on the Self by ignorance, still, doership and causership inherent in the Self might exist? Anticipating this, He says—"neither acting himself" nor "causing" the body and senses "to act"—i.e., engaging them in actions. (Question): Is that doership and causership existent in the embodied one inherently (in the Self) and becomes "not possible" (ceases) due to renunciation—just as the motion of a walking person ceases upon the abandonment of the activity of walking? Or is it that inherently they do not exist for the Self? Regarding this, it is said—Doership and causership do not exist for the Self inherently.

It has indeed been stated: "This is called unchangeable" (Gita 2.25); "Though dwelling in the body, he acts not nor is tainted" (Gita 13.31). And there is the Sruti: "He meditates as it were, he moves as it were" (Brhadaranyaka Up. 4.3.7).

Therefore, in Yoga, the renunciation of action is by the mind alone, and the external performance of action is intended; otherwise, it would be hypocritical conduct (mithyācāra)—He clarifies this principle with "all actions" (sarvakarmāṇi), etc.

In Yoga, having renounced with a mind that has become equanimous, he "remains happily" (āste sukham); "neither acting himself"—because of renunciation by the mind; nor "causing" the senses "to act." Thus, a distinction from Sāṅkhya is also indicated.

सर्वकर्माणि all actions? मनसा by the mind? संन्यस्य having renounced? आस्ते rests? सुखम् happily? वशी the selfcontrolled? नवद्वारे in the ninegated? पुरे in the city? देही the embodied? न not? एव even? कुर्वन् acting? न not? कारयन् causing to act.Commentary All actions -- (1) Nitya Karmas These are obligatory duties. Their performance does not produce any merit but their nonperformance produces demerit. Sandhyavandana? etc.? belong to this category.(2) Naimittika Karmas These Karmas are performed on the occurrence of some special events such as the birth of a son? eclipse? etc.(3) Kamya Karmas These are optional. They are intended for the attainment of some special ends (for getting rain? son? etc.)(4) Nishiddha Karmas These are forbidden actions such as theft? drinking liour? etc.(5) Prayaschitta Karmas Actions performed to neutralise the effects of evil actions or sins.The man who has controlled the senses renounces all actions by discrimination? by seeing inaction in action and rests happily in this body of nine openings (the ninegated city)? because he is free from cares? worries? anxieties and fear and his mind is ite calm and he enjoys the supreme peace of the Eternal. In this ninegated city the Self is the king. The senses? the mind? the subconscious mind? and the intellect are the inhabitants or subjects.The ignorant wordly man says? I am resting in the easychair. The man of wisdom who has realised that the Self is distinct from the body which is a product of the five elements? says? I am resting in this body. (Cf.XVIII.17?50)

Aste, he continues; sukham, happily; sannyasya, having given up; sarva-karmani, all actions-nitya, naimittika, kamya and nisiddha (prohibited actions); [See note on p. 128.-Tr.] manasa, mentally, through discriminating wisdom-i.e. having given up (all actions) by seeing inaction in action, etc. Freed from the activities of speech, mind and body, effortles, placid in mind, and devoid of all external wants which are different from the Self, he continues happily. This is what has been said.
Where and how does the vasi, man of self-control, i.e. one who has his organs under control, remain? This is being answered: Nava-dvare pure, in the town with nine gates, of which seven [Two ears, two eyes nostrils, and mouth.] are in the head for one's own experiences, and two are below for urination and defecation. As possessed of those gates, it is called the 'town with nine gates'. Being like a town, the body is called a town with the Self as its only master. And it is inhabited by the organs, mind, intellect and objects, like citizens, as it were, which serve its needs and which are productive of many results and experience. Renouncing all actions, the dehi, embodied one, resides in that town with nine gates.
Objection: What is the need of this specification? For all embodied beings, be they monks or not, reside in bodies to be sure! That being so, the specification is needless.
The answer is: The embodied one, however, who is unenlightened, who perceives merely the aggregate of the body and organs as the Self, he, in his totality, thinks, 'I am in a house, on the ground, or on the seat.' For one who experiences the body alone as the Self, there can certainly be no such conviction as, 'I am in the body, like one's being in a house.' But, for one who realizes the Self as distinct from the aggregate of body etc. it becomes reasonable to have the conviction, 'I am in the bdoy. It is reasonable that as a result of knowledge in the form of discriminating wisdom, there can be a mental renunciation of the actions of others, which have been ignorantly superimposed on the supreme Self. Even in the case of one in whom has arisen discriminating wisdom and who has renounced all actions, there can be, like staying in a house, the continuance in the body itself-the town with nine gates-as a conseence of the persistence of the remnants of the results of past actions which have started bearing fruit, because the awareness of being distinct (from the body) arises while one is in the body itself. Form the point of veiw of the difference between the convictions of the enlightened and the unenlightened persons, the alifying words, 'He continues in the body itself', do have a purpose to serve.
Although it has been stated that one continues (in the body) by relinishing actions of the body and organs ignorantly superimposed on the Self, still there may be the apprehesion that direct or indirect agentship inheres in the Self. Anticipating this, the Lord says: na eva kurvan, without himself doing anything at all; and na karayan, not causing (others) to do, (not) inducing the body and organs to activity.
Objection: Is it that the direct or indirect agentship of the embodied one inheres in the Self and ceases to be after renunciation, as the movement of a traveller ceases with the stoppage of his movement? Or, is it that they do not exist owing to the very nature of the Self?
As to this, the answer is: The Self by Its nature has neither direct nor indirect agentship. For it was stated, 'It is said that৷৷.This (Self) is unchangeable' (2.25). 'O son of Kunti, although existing in the body, It does not act, nor is It affected' (13.31). And it is also stated in the Upanisad, 'It seems to meditate, as it were; It seems to move, as it were' (Br. 4.3.7).

The embodied self who is self-controlled, renounces all actions to the city of nine gates, i.e., the body with its sensory and motor functions which are nine in number. He discriminates that all actions are due to conjunction of the self with the body which is rooted in previous Karmas, and is not by Its own nature. [It means that the self merely rests in the body, without any identification with bodily activities.]
Sri Krsna now teaches the natural condition of the self as It is: