(3.1)
Arjuna said:
O Janārdana, if you consider knowledge superior to action, then why do you urge me to engage in this terrible action, O Keśava?
Śrīdhara:
Seeing a discrepancy between sāṅkhya and yoga for the confused Arjuna,
The karma-yoga is expounded to remove their difference.
Thus far, starting with "You have grieved for those who should not be grieved for" (Gītā 2.11), the knowledge of discrimination between the body and the self was first stated as the means to liberation. After that, karma was also stated, beginning with "This knowledge has been imparted to you with regard to sāṅkhya. Now listen to it with regard to yoga" (Gītā 2.39). The relationship of principal and subordinate between the two was not clearly shown. Since it was stated there that one with steady wisdom is free from desire, has controlled senses, is free from ego, etc., and concluding with praise "This is the divine state, O Pārtha" (Gītā 2.72), Arjuna, thinking that the Lord considered knowledge superior to action, said "If knowledge is superior". If knowledge is considered by you to be superior, greater, better than action as more internal to liberation, then why do you repeatedly say "Therefore fight" and "Therefore arise", engaging me in terrible, violent action?
Madhusūdana: Thus, in the first chapter the introduction was given, and in the second chapter the entire meaning of the scripture was outlined. Namely - first, the practice of desireless action. Then, purification of the inner faculties. Then, complete renunciation of all actions, preceded by practices like tranquility and self-control. Then, devotion to the Lord accompanied by inquiry into Vedānta statements. Then, steadfastness in knowledge of reality, and its fruit of liberation while living through the cessation of ignorance consisting of the three guṇas, lasting until the exhaustion of prārabdha karma, followed by liberation after death. And in the state of living liberation, supreme detachment arising from the attainment of the highest human goal, and the divine qualities that are favorable and to be accepted. The demoniac qualities, however, which are passionate and ignorant, are to be rejected - with this distinction between what is to be accepted and rejected, the entire meaning of the scripture is concluded.
There, the practice of desireless action as a means of purifying sattva, outlined with "Established in yoga, perform actions" (Gītā 2.48) etc., is elaborated in general and specific form in the third and fourth chapters. Then for one with purified mind, the practice of complete renunciation of all actions, preceded by the attainment of means like tranquility and self-control, outlined with "One who abandons all desires" (Gītā 2.71) etc., is briefly and extensively presented in the fifth and sixth chapters. By this much, the meaning of "thou" (tvam) is also explained. Then devotion to the Lord of various kinds, accompanied by inquiry into Vedānta statements, outlined with "Let him sit disciplined, having Me as the supreme goal" (Gītā 2.61) etc., is taught in six chapters. By that much, the meaning of "that" (tat) is also explained. We will show the intermediate connections and different intermediate purposes for each chapter there. Then the steadfastness in knowledge of reality, which is the knowledge of the unity of the meaning of "thou" and "that", outlined with "Know that which is indestructible, eternal" (Gītā 2.21) etc., is elaborated in the thirteenth chapter through the discrimination of prakṛti and puruṣa. And the fruit of steadfastness in knowledge, the cessation of the three guṇas outlined with "The Vedas deal with the three guṇas. Be free from the three guṇas, O Arjuna" (Gītā 2.45) etc., which is liberation while living, is elaborated in the fourteenth by describing the characteristics of one who has transcended the guṇas. The steadfastness in supreme detachment outlined with "Then you will attain dispassion" (Gītā 2.52) etc. is in the fifteenth through cutting the tree of saṁsāra. The divine qualities that are favorable to supreme detachment, to be accepted, outlined with the characteristics of the man of steady wisdom beginning with "One whose mind is not distressed in adversities" (Gītā 2.56) etc., and the demoniac qualities that oppose it, to be rejected, outlined with "Those who utter this flowery speech" (Gītā 2.42) etc., are in the sixteenth. The special cause of divine qualities, which is sāttvic faith, outlined with "Free from duality, ever established in sattva" (Gītā 2.45) etc., is in the seventeenth by avoiding what opposes it. Thus steadfastness in knowledge with its fruit is taught in five chapters. And in the eighteenth is the conclusion of all that was said before. This is the connection of the entire meaning of the Gītā.
There, in the previous chapter, steadfastness in knowledge based on sāṅkhya was taught by the Lord with "This knowledge has been imparted to you with regard to sāṅkhya" (Gītā 2.39). Likewise, steadfastness in action based on yoga was taught beginning with "Now listen with regard to yoga" up to "You have a right to action alone... Let there not be attachment to inaction" (Gītā 2.47). The Lord did not clearly instruct about a difference in eligibility for these two practices. It cannot be said that both are meant for the same person with the intention of combining them, because it is stated that steadfastness in action is inferior to steadfastness in knowledge with "Action is far inferior to the yoga of knowledge, O Dhanaṃjaya" (Gītā 2.49). And in "To the extent that a well serves a purpose" (Gītā 2.46), it is shown that the fruit of all actions is included in the fruit of knowledge. After stating the characteristics of one of steady wisdom, the fruit of knowledge is concluded with praise in "This is the divine state, O Pārtha" (Gītā 2.72). And in "What is night for all beings" (Gītā 2.69) etc., it is stated that for the knower there is no perception of duality and thus no possibility of performing actions. Only knowledge is considered the means for the fruit of liberation characterized by the cessation of ignorance, in accordance with common understanding. And the śruti says "Only by knowing Him does one go beyond death. There is no other path for going there." (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.8)
Then if knowledge and action are mutually opposed like light and darkness, and their combination is impossible, let them have different eligibilities. True. But it is not possible that both are taught to Arjuna alone. For it is not proper to teach steadfastness in knowledge to one eligible for action, nor steadfastness in action to one eligible for knowledge. If it is said that both are taught optionally to one person, no. Because there can be no option between superior and inferior. And because there can be no gradation in liberation which is one's own nature indicated by the cessation of ignorance. Therefore, since teaching both to one person is not possible if knowledge and action have different eligibilities, and since the combination of mutually opposed things is not possible if they have the same eligibility, and since the superiority of knowledge over action is not justified, and since in accepting an option it is not proper to abandon the superior and easily accomplished knowledge and undertake the inferior and very effortful action, Arjuna with a confused mind said - "If knowledge is superior".
O Janārdana (the one who is implored by all people for the fulfillment of their desires)! Since you are such a one who is implored by all people for the fulfillment of their desires, it is not inappropriate that I too implore you for the determination of my welfare. If you consider knowledge of the self to be superior and more praiseworthy than even desireless action, then why do you engage me, your devoted follower, in terrible action full of violence and many difficulties, and especially encourage me saying "Your right is to action alone"? O Keśava (the one who has control over Brahmā and Śiva), Supreme Lord! It is not proper for you, the Supreme Lord and giver of all desires, to deceive me, your devotee and disciple, who has approached you with exclusive surrender, saying "I am your student, instruct me" and so on.
Viśvanātha:
Desireless dedicated action is elaborated in the third chapter.
Discrimination is also shown in the desire to conquer desire and anger.
Having understood in the previous statements the superiority of devotional service transcending the modes, which leads beyond the three modes, over the path of knowledge and the path of desireless action, and expressing his own eagerness for that, he reproaches the Lord, who is urging him to engage in his duty of fighting, with a friendly mood. Jyāyasī means superior, resolute intelligence, devotion beyond the modes. Why do you engage me, urge me to terrible action in the form of war? O Janārdana means "you torment your own people with your order". And your order cannot be disobeyed by anyone, thus he says. O Keśava means you control even Brahmā and Mahādeva in age.
Baladeva:
In the third chapter, desireless action is described in detail.
The method of conquering desire etc., though difficult to conquer, is also shown.
Previously, the compassionate charioteer of Pārtha, desiring to uplift the world sunk in the mud of ignorance through instructions on knowledge of the self and worship, taught the understanding of the true nature of the individual soul as a component of that, and as a means to that, taught desireless action. This very meaning is described in four chapters with different methods for ascertainment. There, the understanding of the individual soul, being produced by action and intelligence, is established as superior. Regarding that, Arjuna asks "jyāyasī". If the understanding of the individual soul is considered by you to be jyāyasī (superior) even to desireless action, as it is accomplished by that, then why do you engage me in terrible action full of violence and many difficulties for its accomplishment, and how do you urge me saying "Therefore fight" and so on? Indeed, that intelligence which is the cause of self-realization is to be accomplished through cessation of all sense activities, so for that purpose, practices of the same kind like tranquility etc. would be appropriate, not actions of a different kind involving all sense activities - this is the meaning. O Janārdana, one who is implored by people seeking welfare, O Keśava, one who controls Brahmā and Rudra.
"Ka is the name of Brahmā, I am Īśa of all embodied beings.
We two have arisen from your body, therefore you bear the name Keśava."
Thus Rudra's statement to Kṛṣṇa in the Hari-vaṁśa. You whose order is difficult to transgress, I who am seeking welfare have requested you, please determine and tell me my welfare - this is the meaning.
(3.2)
You seem to be confusing my mind with your mixed statements. Therefore, tell me decisively one thing by which I may attain the highest good.
śrīdharaḥ: Now, thinking "For a kṣatriya (warrior), there is no greater duty than fighting a righteous war" and so on, the superiority of action has already been stated. Anticipating this, he says "vyāmiśreṇa" (with mixed). Sometimes praising action, sometimes praising knowledge - thus mixed and seemingly causing doubt, by such speech you seem to confuse my mind, making it waver between both. Therefore, deciding which of the two is better, tell me that one thing. Or, deciding "This alone is the means to the highest good", tell me decisively that one thing which, when practiced, will enable me to attain mokṣa (liberation). This is the meaning. ||2||
madhusūdanaḥ: Now, [you might say] "I am not deceiving anyone, let alone you who are so dear to me. But do you see any sign of deception in me?" To this he replies "vyāmiśreṇa" (with mixed). Your speech is not mixed, but due to my doubt about whether I have a single qualification or different qualifications, your speech seems mixed to me, as if with confused meaning. Your words to me, expounding both the paths of knowledge and action, seem to confuse my mind, the inner faculty of my dull intellect, as if leading it to error due to not understanding the purport of your words. Due to your supreme compassion, you are not actually confusing me, but due to the faults of my own intentions, confusion arises - this is the meaning of the word "iva" (as if). If you think there is a difference in qualifications, then due to the impossibility of combining contradictory things for a single qualification, and the impossibility of alternatives due to the lack of single purpose as stated before, tell me decisively about only one qualification for me, either knowledge or action, since it is not proper to instruct me in contradictory paths. By whichever - knowledge or action - when instructed by you and practiced by me with certainty of qualification, I may become fit to attain the highest good, liberation.
Thus it is established that Arjuna's question is to know the difference in qualifications, since in the case of a single qualification for both knowledge and action paths, neither alternative nor combination is possible.
The erroneous views of others here
Have all been refuted by the force of śruti, smṛti, and logic.
Again and again through the great efforts of the commentator,
Therefore I am not inclined to address them.
By one who sees the essence of the commentator's view,
Only the text is explained here by me.
The intention of the Blessed Lord is illuminated
Solely for the purification of my own words. ||2||
viśvanāthaḥ: O friend Arjuna! Truly, devotion transcending the guṇas (prākṛta qualities) is indeed the highest. However, being attainable only by the chance grace of my rare, exclusive, great devotees, it is not achievable by human effort. Therefore, the blessing "May you become free from the three guṇas through devotion to me that transcends the guṇas" has been given. And when that will bear fruit, then you will attain it by the grace of such a rare, exclusive devotee. But for now, if I have said "Your right is to action alone", then it is true. Then why do I not tell you decisively to perform action alone? Why do you throw me into an ocean of doubt? To this he says "vyāmiśreṇa" (with mixed). You confuse my intellect with speech that is especially mixed, that is, where various meanings are combined. Thus: "Your right is to action alone" [Gītā 2.47], "Being equipoised in success and failure, this equanimity is called yoga" [Gītā 2.48],
"One endowed with this wisdom casts off both good and evil deeds in this world. Therefore, strive for yoga; yoga is skill in action." [Gītā 2.50]
Thus you speak of knowledge also, denoted by the word "yoga". When you say "When your intellect crosses beyond the thicket of delusion" [Gītā 2.52], by this you speak of knowledge alone. Moreover, by the word "iva" (as if) here, it is implied that your speech is not actually mixed with various meanings, nor does the compassionate you have a desire to confuse me, nor am I actually ignorant of those various meanings. This is the hidden intention: Sāttvika (in the mode of goodness) action is superior to rājasika (passionate) action, and that sāttvika action is indeed superior. And devotion beyond the guṇas is even more superior to that. If you say that is not possible for me, then instruct me in sāttvika knowledge alone. By that alone may I be liberated from the painful bondage of saṁsāra (cycle of rebirth). ||2||
baladevaḥ: "vyāmiśreṇa" (with mixed): Speech that obstructs the means-end relationship of Sāṅkhya wisdom and yoga wisdom, both of which involve sense restraint, is called mixed. By that you seem to confuse my intellect. In reality, there is no intention to confuse me in you, the controller of all and my friend. Due to the fault of my own intellect, I understand it this way - this is the meaning of the word "iva" (as if). Therefore, speak one unmixed statement. As the śruti says: "Not by action, not by progeny, not by wealth, but by renunciation alone have some attained immortality. What is not done by action is not done at all." By which I may decide what is to be done and attain the highest good for myself. ||2||
(3.3)
The Blessed Lord said:
In this world, O sinless one, a twofold path of devotion was declared by Me in ancient times - the path of knowledge for those following Sāṅkhya, and the path of action for the yogis.
Śrīdhara: In response, the Blessed Lord said - "In this world" etc. The meaning is this: If I had spoken of two paths independent of each other as means to liberation - the path of action and the path of knowledge - then your question "Tell me decisively which of the two is better" would be appropriate. But I did not speak thus. I spoke of one devotion to Brahman through both. Because those two, being principal and subordinate, cannot be independent, only one path was spoken of with variations according to different qualifications. In this world of twofold inner organs - pure and impure - the twofold devotion, meaning dedication to liberation, was clearly declared by Me, the omniscient one, in the previous chapter. He specifies the two types: "By the yoga of knowledge" etc. For the Sāṅkhyas with pure inner organs who have ascended to the stage of knowledge, devotion through the yoga of knowledge, i.e. meditation etc., was declared for perfecting their knowledge, as in "Restraining them all, he should sit disciplined, intent on Me" etc. But for those aspiring to ascend to the Sāṅkhya stage, devotion through karma-yoga was declared for yogis qualified for karma-yoga as a means to ascend to that stage through inner purification, as in "Indeed, for a warrior there is no greater good than a righteous war" etc. Thus the twofold devotion was declared to you based on the difference in your mental state of purity. "This wisdom has been imparted to you according to Sāṅkhya; now listen to it according to Yoga." ||3||
Madhusūdana: Thus when asked by Arjuna about the difference in qualifications, the Blessed Lord gave an appropriate reply - "In this world" etc. In this world considered qualified, which is twofold due to the difference of pure and impure inner organs, a twofold devotion - dedication to knowledge and dedication to action - was clearly declared by Me, who desire your highest good, in the previous chapter. The vocative "O sinless one" indicates Arjuna's fitness for instruction. The singular "devotion" is used to indicate that it is one devotion with two aspects based on the stages of means and end, not two independent devotions. As He will say later: "He who sees Sāṅkhya and Yoga as one, he sees [truly]." (Gītā 5.5)
He shows that same devotion in two ways: "For the Sāṅkhyas" etc. For the Sāṅkhyas who have attained proper self-knowledge, who have renounced from brahmacharya itself, whose understanding of Vedānta is well-ascertained, who have ascended to the stage of knowledge, who have pure inner organs - for them devotion through jñāna-yoga was declared, as in "Restraining them all, he should sit disciplined, intent on Me" (Gītā 2.61) etc. But for the yogis with impure inner organs who have not ascended to the stage of knowledge, who are qualified for action, devotion through karma-yoga was declared for ascending to the stage of knowledge through inner purification, as in "Indeed, for a warrior there is no greater good than a righteous war" (Gītā 2.31) etc.
Therefore there is neither combination nor option between knowledge and action. Rather, for those with purified inner organs through desireless action, knowledge is attained only through complete renunciation of all action. Thus based on the difference in mental purity and impurity, one devotion was declared to you in two ways. As stated: "This wisdom has been imparted to you according to Sāṅkhya; now listen to it according to Yoga." (Gītā 2.39) Thus even with difference in qualification, there is no futility of instruction since both are useful for one person at different stages. To show this, He will explain in thirteen verses from "Not by abstaining from action" (Gītā 3.4) to "vain is his life" (Gītā 3.16) that one with impure mind should engage in action until mental purification. But for the knower with pure mind, no action is required, as He will show in two verses starting with "But he who delights in the Self" (Gītā 3.17). Then beginning with "Therefore, unattached", He will show that even action which is a cause of bondage can become a cause of liberation through purification of being and arising of knowledge, when done with the skill of being free from desire for results. Then raising the question "Now by what", He will explain till the end of the chapter that action done without desire purifies the inner instrument and makes one qualified for knowledge. ||3||
Viśvanātha: In reply: If I had spoken of karma-yoga and jñāna-yoga as independent means to liberation, then your question "Tell me decisively which one" would be appropriate. But the twofold nature I spoke of in terms of practicing karma and being established in knowledge is only due to the difference in prior and later stages, not actually due to two types of qualifications for liberation. He says this in two verses beginning with "In this world". "Twofold devotion" means twofold steadfast adherence to limits. "Was declared before" means was stated in the previous chapter. He explains that same: "For the Sāṅkhyas" means for those possessing Sāṅkhya knowledge. For them who have ascended to the stage of knowledge due to inner purity, devotion is established only through jñāna-yoga. The meaning is that in this world they are renowned as jñānīs, as stated in "Restraining them all, he should sit disciplined, intent on Me" (Gītā 2.61) etc. Similarly, for the yogis who are unable to ascend to the stage of knowledge due to lack of inner purity, devotion is established through karma-yoga, i.e. desireless action offered to Me, as a means to ascend to that stage. They indeed are renowned as karmīs, as stated in "Indeed, for a warrior there is no greater good than a righteous war" (Gītā 2.31) etc. Thus the twofold nature is only in name as karmīs and jñānīs. But in reality, karmīs with purified minds become jñānīs, and jñānīs are liberated through devotion - this is the purport of my statements taken together. ||3||
Baladeva: Thus asked, the Lord said "In this world" etc. O sinless one, O Pārtha of pure intellect, even though knowing the relationship of qualities and predominance between karma-buddhi and sāṅkhya-buddhi, like darkness and light, how can they have the same eligibility for these two opposites? This is the meaning of your question motivated by doubt. In this world of people of two kinds - pure-minded and impure-minded - who desire liberation, I, the Lord of all, previously declared in the earlier chapter a twofold steadfastness. By using the singular "niṣṭhā" (steadfastness), it is indicated that there is only one steadfastness with two aspects of means and end, not two separate steadfastnesses. He will say the same later: "Sāṅkhya and yoga are one" [Gītā 5.5]. He shows that steadfastness in two ways: "By knowledge" etc. Sāṅkhya is knowledge, worthy of the first. The steadfastness of the knowers possessing that was stated through knowledge-yoga: "When he abandons all desires" [Gītā 2.55] etc. Knowledge itself is yoga, as it is etymologically derived as "that by which one unites with the Self". The steadfastness of yogins who perform desireless action was stated through karma-yoga: "You have a right to action only" [Gītā 2.47] etc. Action itself is yoga, as it is etymologically derived as "that by which one unites through purification of mind pregnant with knowledge". This means - indeed, an aspirant for liberation does not immediately attain the steadfastness of knowledge with its auxiliaries like tranquility. Rather, only after dispelling the impurity of mind through karma-yoga with proper conduct. This very thing I stated earlier: "This has been declared to you in Sāṅkhya" [Gītā 2.39] etc.
(3.4)
Not by abstaining from actions does man attain freedom from action,
Nor by mere renunciation does he attain perfection.
Śrīdhara: Therefore, one should perform duties appropriate to one's stage of life until the arising of knowledge through proper purification of mind. Otherwise, due to lack of mental purity, knowledge will not arise. This is stated in "Not by abstaining" etc. By not undertaking actions, one does not attain freedom from action, i.e. knowledge. But the śruti says "Desiring this world alone, mendicants renounce", indicating renunciation as a means to liberation. So will liberation not come from renunciation alone? What need is there of actions? Anticipating this objection, it is said "Nor by". Without purification of mind, by mere renunciation devoid of knowledge, one does not attain perfection, i.e. liberation.
Madhusūdana: Since in the absence of a cause the effect cannot occur, it is said "Not by actions" etc. The śruti says "By ritual action, by study of the Veda, by meditation, by austerity, by fasting, Brahmins seek to know That". Without performing these actions prescribed for self-knowledge, due to lack of mental purity, an externally-oriented person does not attain freedom from action, i.e. steadfastness through knowledge-yoga which is devoid of all action.
But the śruti says "Desiring this world alone, mendicants renounce", so since steadfastness of knowledge is possible from renunciation of all action alone, what is the need for actions? To this he says "Nor by renunciation alone" without purification of mind does one attain perfection characterized by steadfastness of knowledge as culminating in the final result. Without mental purity produced by action, renunciation itself is not possible. Even if done somehow out of mere eagerness, it does not culminate in the result.
Viśvanātha: He states that in the absence of mental purity, knowledge does not arise in "Not" etc. By not undertaking prescribed actions, one with an impure mind does not attain freedom from action, i.e. knowledge. Nor by renunciation, i.e. abandoning prescribed actions.
Baladeva: Therefore, one with an impure mind should perform only his prescribed duties for purification of mind. This is stated in the thirteen verses beginning with "Not by actions". The Veda says "By ritual action they seek to know That", prescribing actions as auxiliaries to knowledge. By not undertaking these, a person with an impure mind does not attain freedom from action, i.e. steadfastness of knowledge which is cessation of all sense activities. Nor does he attain perfection, i.e. liberation, by renunciation, i.e. abandoning those actions.
(3.5)
For no one ever remains even for a moment without performing action;
Everyone is forced to perform action by the guṇas (qualities) born of prakṛti (nature).
Śrīdhara: Renunciation of actions means only non-attachment to them, not their abandonment in essence, as that is impossible. This is stated in "For no one" etc. At no time, even for a moment, does anyone, whether wise or ignorant, remain without performing action. The reason for this: Everyone is forced to perform worldly or Vedic action by the guṇas born of prakṛti, i.e. arising from one's nature, such as attraction and aversion, being not independent.
madhusūdanaḥ: There, in the absence of purity born of karma, one who is outwardly focused. Indeed, because not even for a moment of time does anyone with uncontrolled senses ever remain without performing karma. But rather, he remains engaged only in the performance of worldly and Vedic karma, therefore renunciation is not possible for one with an impure mind - this is the meaning.
Why again does the ignorant person not remain without performing actions? Indeed, because every living being, devoid of mental purity, being helpless and dependent, is made to perform worldly or Vedic karma by the guṇas (qualities) born of prakṛti (nature), manifested in the form of effects - sattva, rajas and tamas - or by qualities like attachment and aversion arising from one's nature. Therefore, the meaning is that no one remains without performing actions. Since the natural qualities are motive forces, therefore for one with an impure intellect who always performs actions under the control of others, complete renunciation of all actions is not possible - thus knowledge based on renunciation is not possible - this is the meaning. ||5||
viśvanāthaḥ: However, one with an impure mind who has taken sannyāsa (renunciation), abandoning scriptural duties, becomes immersed in worldly activities - this is stated in "na hi". But is not renunciation itself opposed to engagement in Vedic and worldly duties for him? To this he says "kāryate". Helpless, not independent. ||5||
baladevaḥ: One with an impure mind who has renounced Vedic duties becomes immersed even in worldly activities - this is stated in "na hi". But if renunciation itself is opposed to all actions for him, to this he says "kāryate". By the qualities born of nature, like attachment and aversion, he is made to act, he would be helpless, dependent on others. ||5||
(3.6)
karmendriyāṇi saṁyamya ya āste manasā smaran |
indriyārthān vimūḍhātmā mithyācāraḥ sa ucyate ||
śrīdharaḥ: Therefore he censures the ignorant renouncer of action in "karmendriyāṇi". The organs of action like speech, hands, etc. Restraining, under the pretext of meditating on the Lord, remembering sense objects, he remains with an impure mind due to lack of steadiness in the self, he is called a hypocrite, one with false conduct, a pretender - this is the meaning. ||6||
madhusūdanaḥ: One who has taken renunciation merely out of eagerness somehow, but with an impure mind, does not attain its fruit, because: He whose self is deluded, whose inner organ is corrupted by attachment, aversion, etc., out of mere eagerness, restraining the organs of action like speech, hands, etc., that is, not performing actions with the external organs; remembering with the mind impelled by attachment, etc. sense objects like sound, etc., not the truth of the self, he remains thinking "I am a renunciate", staying without action - he is called one of false conduct, a sinner due to being unfit for the fruit because of lack of purity of being, according to dharma scriptures like:
"Renunciation of all actions is prescribed here by the Vedas for discrimination of the meaning of 'thou', therefore one who abandons that would fall."
Thus it is established that one with an impure mind does not attain perfection merely by renunciation. ||6||
viśvanāthaḥ: But is there not some such renunciate? Is not some renunciate seen with closed eyes, free from activity of the senses? To this he says "karmendriyāṇi", restraining the organs of action like speech, hands, etc., who remains remembering sense objects in the mind under the pretext of meditation, he is a hypocrite with false conduct. ||6||
baladevaḥ: But if some renunciate is seen with closed ears etc., free from activity of attachment etc., to this he says "karmendriyāṇi". The renunciate who, restraining the organs of action like speech etc., remains remembering sense objects like sound, touch etc. in the mind under the guise of meditation, he is called foolish and of false conduct. And due to non-arising of mental purity through performance of desireless action for an ignorant person whose attachment etc. is suppressed, even though the ears etc. are not engaged, due to impurity, because of remembering their objects in the mind, though ready for knowledge, because of non-attainment of knowledge by him, he is of false conduct, uselessly restraining speech etc., a hypocrite - this is the meaning. ||6||
(3.7)
But he who controls the senses with the mind, O Arjuna, and engages the organs of action in karma-yoga (action), without attachment, he excels.
śrīdharaḥ: He who is opposite to this, the performer of action, is superior - this is stated in "yas tv indriyāṇi". He who, controlling the senses with the mind, making them subservient to the Lord, engages in karma-yoga, the means which is in the form of action, with the organs of action; being unattached, free from desire for fruits. He excels, becomes superior by purification of consciousness, becomes endowed with knowledge - this is the meaning. ||7||
madhusūdanaḥ: Without renouncing all actions merely out of eagerness, one should perform desireless actions according to scripture for purification of the mind. Therefore, "yas tu". The word "tu" shows the distinction from one who renounces with an impure mind. Controlling the sense organs like hearing etc. along with the mind, turning away from attachment to sense objects like sound etc. which are causes of sin; or controlling with a mind endowed with discrimination. He who is discriminating and performs karma-yoga, action prescribed as a means of purification, with the organs of action like speech, hands etc., being unattached, free from desire for fruits - he excels over the other who acts falsely. Though the effort is the same, he becomes superior by attaining superior results. O Arjuna, see this wonder that one person restraining the organs of action while engaging the sense organs is devoid of the highest goal, while another restraining the sense organs while engaging the organs of action attains the supreme goal. ||7||
viśvanāthaḥ: The householder who performs scriptural actions contrary to this is superior - this is stated in "yas tu". Karma-yoga means prescribed by scripture. Unattached means not desiring fruits. He excels. He is superior even to one established in knowledge, due to the possibility of attaining grace - thus say the venerable feet of Śrī Rāmānujācārya. ||7||
baladevaḥ: The householder who performs his prescribed duties, contrary to this, is also superior - this is stated in "yas tu". He who, controlling the senses like hearing etc. with a mind engaged in self-realization, being unattached, free from desire for fruits, engages in karma-yoga, the means which is in the form of action, with the organs of action - he excels. The meaning is that he becomes superior to the previous one due to the possibility of attaining knowledge. ||7||
(3.8)
Perform your prescribed duty, for doing so is better than not working. Even the maintenance of your body would not be possible without work.
śrīdharaḥ: "niyatam" - Since this is so, therefore perform your prescribed duty, the obligatory daily rituals like sandhyā worship etc. For, action is superior to non-action, abstaining from all action. Otherwise, without action, being devoid of all action, even the maintenance of your body would not be possible. ||8||
madhusūdanaḥ: Since this is so, therefore controlling the sense organs with the mind, you who have not previously performed actions that are means of purification, perform your prescribed duty, action enjoined in scriptural injunctions devoid of connection with fruits, known as nitya or obligatory, both śrauta and smārta. Though "you" is understood from the use of the second person in "kuru", the word "tvam" is used to indicate a different meaning.
Why should one with an impure mind perform only action? Because action is indeed superior, more praiseworthy than non-action, abstention from action. Not only would purification of your mind not be accomplished in the absence of action, but even the maintenance of your body would not be properly accomplished characterized by following the duties of a kṣatriya, for you who are devoid of action like fighting etc. This was stated earlier. The word "api ca" indicates the combination with purification of mind. ||8||
viśvanāthaḥ: Therefore you perform your prescribed duty, the obligatory daily rituals like sandhyā worship etc. It is superior to non-action, renunciation of action. Even the maintenance of your body would not be possible for you who have renounced all action. ||8||
baladevaḥ: "niyatam" - Therefore you, with an impure mind, perform your prescribed obligatory duty for purification of mind, meaning perform your ordained actions without desire for fruits. Action is indeed superior, more praiseworthy than non-action, renunciation of all action merely out of eagerness, as it produces knowledge step by step. For those who renounce action merely out of eagerness, knowledge does not manifest in an impure heart. Moreover, for you who have renounced all action, even the maintenance of your body would not be possible. Since maintaining the body is necessary until perfection of practice, even a jñānī performs actions like begging alms etc. for that purpose. But that is not appropriate for you as a kṣatriya. Therefore, earning wealth through your prescribed duties like fighting and protecting subjects, and maintaining your body without obstacles with that, contemplate on your self. ||8||
(3.9)
yajñārthāt karmaṇo'nyatra loko'yaṁ karma-bandhanaḥ |
tad-arthaṁ karma kaunteya mukta-saṅgaḥ samācara ||
śrīdharaḥ: The Sāṅkhyas say that all action is binding and should not be performed. Refuting this, he says "yajñārthāt". Here yajña means Viṣṇu, as per the śruti "yajño vai viṣṇuḥ". Other than action done for worshipping Him, this world is bound by action. But action done for worshipping the Lord is not binding. Therefore, O son of Kuntī, perform action for His sake, for pleasing Viṣṇu, being free from attachment. ||9||
madhusūdanaḥ: Due to the smṛti "karmaṇā badhyate jantuḥ" [Ma.Bhā. 12.241.7], thinking that all action is binding and should not be done by one desiring liberation, he gives the reply "yajñārthāt". Yajña means the Supreme Lord, as per the śruti "yajño vai viṣṇuḥ" [Tai.Saṁ. 1.7.4]. Action done for His worship is yajñārtha. Other than that action, this world engaged in action is bound by action, not by action done for the Lord's worship. Therefore, O son of Kuntī! You who are qualified for action, perform action for His sake, for yajña, being free from attachment, with proper faith, etc. ||9||
viśvanāthaḥ: If it is objected that action causes bondage as per the smṛti "karmaṇā badhyate jantuḥ", that is not so. Action offered to the Supreme Lord is not binding, as stated in "yajñārthāt". Dharma offered to Viṣṇu without desire is called yajña. Other than action done for that purpose, this world is bound by action. Therefore, you perform action for that purpose, for accomplishing such dharma.
If it is objected that even dharma offered to Viṣṇu is binding if done with desire, he says "mukta-saṅgaḥ", free from desire for results. Thus the Lord also said to Uddhava:
"O Uddhava, one who performs yajñas while established in one's dharma, without desire for rewards, does not go to heaven or hell if he does not perform other actions.
Remaining in this world, established in one's dharma, sinless and pure, one attains pure knowledge or devotion to Me by chance." [Bhā.Pu.11.20.10-11] ||9||
baladevaḥ: If it is objected that action performed causes bondage, as per the smṛti "karmaṇā badhyate jantuḥ", etc., he replies "yajñārthāt". Yajña means the Supreme Lord, as per the śruti "yajño vai viṣṇuḥ". Other than action done for His sake, for pleasing Him, this world performing action for one's own pleasure is bound by action. Therefore, perform action for His sake, to please Viṣṇu. O son of Kuntī, being free from attachment, having given up desire for pleasure, by performing yajña etc. with righteously earned wealth to worship Viṣṇu, and maintaining the body with what remains, one is not bound - this is the meaning. ||9||
(3.10)
saha-yajñāḥ prajāḥ sṛṣṭvā purovāca prajāpatiḥ |
anena prasaviṣyadhvam eṣa vo'stv iṣṭa-kāma-dhuk ||
śrīdharaḥ: To show that performing action is superior even according to Prajāpati's words, he says "sahayajñā". Sahayajñāḥ means progeny qualified for yajña, like brāhmaṇas etc., who exist together with yajña. Having created them in the beginning at the time of creation, Brahmā said this: "By this yajña you shall prosper." Prasava means increase. The meaning is "May you attain ever-increasing prosperity." The reason for this is: "May this yajña be iṣṭa-kāma-dhuk for you." Iṣṭa-kāma-dhuk means "one who grants desired enjoyments". Here yajña refers to obligatory duties. Though praise of desire-motivated action is irrelevant to the context, it is not a fault as it is meant to show that action in general is superior to inaction. ||10||
madhusūdanaḥ: To show that one who is qualified should perform action even according to Prajāpati's words, he says "sahayajñā" in four verses. Sahayajñāḥ means those who exist together with yajña, the collection of prescribed actions, i.e. those who are equally qualified. As per the rule "vopasarjanasya" [Pā. 6.3.82], there is no substitution of sā optionally. The Lord of creatures, the creator, having created the progeny of three varṇas in the beginning of creation, said. What did he say? He said: "By this yajña," meaning the dharma appropriate to one's āśrama, "may you prosper (prasaviṣyadhvam)." Prasava means increase. The meaning is "May you attain ever-increasing prosperity." How will prosperity come from this? He says: "May this yajña-like dharma be iṣṭa-kāma-dhuk for you." Iṣṭa-kāma-dhuk means "one who grants desired enjoyments, desired fruits". The meaning is "May it provide desired enjoyments."
Here, although yajña refers to obligatory duties, as punishment for non-performance will be stated later, and desire-motivated actions are not relevant here as they are rejected by "Do not be motivated by the fruits of action", still it is appropriate to say "May this be iṣṭa-kāma-dhuk for you" because even obligatory duties have incidental fruits. As Āpastamba says: "Just as shade and fragrance arise incidentally when a mango tree is planted for fruit, similarly other benefits arise incidentally when dharma is practiced. If they do not arise, there is no loss of dharma." Even when fruits exist, there is a difference between desire-motivated and obligatory actions based on intending or not intending the fruits. There is no difference in fruits arising naturally even when unintended. This will be explained in detail later. ||10||
viśvanāthaḥ: It was said earlier that one with an impure mind should perform desireless action, not renunciation. Now he says in seven verses that even if one cannot be desireless, one should perform desire-motivated dharma offered to Viṣṇu, not abandon action. Sahayajñāḥ means "together with yajña". As per the rule, there is no substitution of saha. In the beginning, having created progeny who perform dharma offered to Viṣṇu, Brahmā said: "By this dharma may you prosper (prasaviṣyadhvam)." Prasava means increase. The meaning is "May you attain ever-increasing prosperity." Considering their desires, he says: "May this yajña be iṣṭa-kāma-dhuk for you", meaning "May it provide desired enjoyments." ||10||
Baladeva: He states the fault of maintaining one's body with the remnants of a sacrifice with "saha" etc. According to śruti texts like "Prajāpati is the supreme lord Viṣṇu, the master of the universe, the lord of the self" and smṛti texts like "This Acyuta is Brahman, the lord of creatures", in the beginning, at the time of the first creation, having created creatures endowed with sacrifice, in the forms of gods, humans etc., who were merged in himself as the prakṛti-śakti without distinction of name and form, and unfit for the goals of life, he made them partake of names and forms that accomplish those, and revealed sacrifice and the Veda which prescribes it. The compassionate one spoke this to them: "By this sacrifice offered to me as prescribed in the Veda, may you prosper." The meaning is: May you attain growth, may you attain your own prosperity. May this sacrifice offered to me be a fulfiller of desired objects for you, granting the desired liberation through purification of the heart, self-knowledge, and maintenance of the body. (10)
(3.11)
devān bhāvayatānena te devā bhāvayantu vaḥ |
parasparaṁ bhāvayantaḥ śreyaḥ param avāpsyatha ||
Śrīdhara: How does sacrifice become a fulfiller of desired objects? He explains this with "devān" etc. Nourish the gods with this sacrifice. Increase them with portions of offerings. And may those gods increase you through rain etc. by producing food. Thus mutually increasing each other, both the gods and you will obtain the highest good, the desired object. (11)
Madhusūdana: How does sacrifice become a fulfiller of desired objects? He explains this with "devān" etc. By this sacrifice, you sacrificers nourish the gods like Indra etc. The meaning is: Satisfy them with portions of offerings. Those gods, being nourished by you, may nourish you through rain etc. by producing food. Thus mutually increasing each other, both the gods and you will obtain the desired object, the highest good. The meaning is: The gods will obtain satisfaction and you will obtain heaven, which is the highest good. (11)
Viśvanātha: How does sacrifice become a giver of desired objects? He explains this with "devān" etc. By this sacrifice, nourish the gods. Make them pleased. The meaning is: Make them endowed with love by pleasing them. Those gods also may please you. (11)
Baladeva: This is also instructed to the creatures: By this sacrifice, please my limb-like Indra and others by giving the respective offerings. May those gods please you by granting boons. Thus mutually pleased through pure food, you will obtain the highest good in the form of liberation. For purity of food is a component of steadfastness in knowledge. According to śruti: "From purity of food comes purity of being; from purity of being comes steady memory; from attainment of memory comes release from all knots." (11)
(3.12)
iṣṭān bhogān hi vo devā dāsyante yajña-bhāvitāḥ |
tair dattān apradāyaibhyo yo bhuṅkte stena eva saḥ ||
Śrīdhara: Clarifying this further, he states the fault of not performing actions with "iṣṭān" etc. The gods, being nourished by sacrifices, will indeed give you enjoyments through rain etc. Therefore, one who enjoys food etc. given by the gods without giving to these gods through the five sacrifices etc., he should be known as a thief, a robber. (12)
Madhusūdana: Not only does sacrifice yield results in the next world, but also in this world, he states with "iṣṭān" etc. The gods will give you desired enjoyments like animals, food, gold etc. Indeed, since they are pleased by sacrifices. Since enjoyments are given by them like a debt, therefore one who enjoys enjoyments given by those gods without giving to these gods, without performing offerings in sacrifices for the gods, who only satisfies his body and senses, he is indeed a thief, a robber, stealing the property of the gods by not repaying the debt to the gods. (12)
Viśvanātha: Clarifying this further, he states the fault of not performing actions with "iṣṭān" etc. Given by them means produced through rain etc., namely food etc. One who enjoys without giving to these gods through the five great sacrifices etc., he is indeed a thief. (12)
Baladeva: Clarifying this further, he states the fault of not performing actions with "iṣṭān" etc. The gods who are my limbs, pleased before, will give you desired enjoyments suitable for seekers of liberation, dependent on progressive sacrifices, producing grains etc. through rain etc. One who enjoys those enjoyments given by the gods for worshipping them without giving to them through the five sacrifices etc., satisfying only himself, he is indeed a thief, a robber. By stealing those and nourishing himself with them. Like a thief from a king, he deserves punishment from Yama, unfit for human goals. (12)
(3.13)
yajña-śiṣṭāśinaḥ santo mucyante sarva-kilbiṣaiḥ |
bhuñjate te tv aghaṁ pāpā ye pacanty ātma-kāraṇāt ||
Śrīdhara: Therefore, those who perform sacrifices are indeed the best. He states this with "yajña-śiṣṭāśinaḥ" etc. Those who eat the remnants of sacrifices like Vaiśvadeva etc. are freed from all sins done through the five sūnās. The five sūnās are mentioned in smṛti:
"The grinding stone, the mortar, the oven, the water pot, and the broom - these are the five sūnās of a householder. Because of these, he does not obtain heaven."
Those who cook only for their own eating, not for Vaiśvadeva etc., those sinful ones of bad conduct eat only sin. (13)
Madhusūdana: Those who eat the remnants of sacrifices like Vaiśvadeva etc., which is nectar, those saints, followers of the Veda, being free from debts to gods etc., are therefore freed from all sins caused by non-performance of prescribed duties and previously done through the five sūnās. The meaning is: They become free from past and future sins.
Having thus stated the absence of past and future sins in the positive case, he states the fault in the negative case with "bhuñjate" etc. Those who do not perform Vaiśvadeva etc. eat only sin. The word "tu" is for emphasis. Those sinful ones who have committed sins through the five sūnās and through unintentional injury, who cook only for themselves, not for Vaiśvadeva etc. Thus, even when sins through the five sūnās etc. exist, they incur another sin by not performing the daily duties of Vaiśvadeva etc. Therefore it is said "they eat only sin, those sinful ones". And thus the smṛti:
"The grinding stone, the mortar, the oven, the water pot, and the broom - these are the five sūnās of a householder. Because of these, he does not obtain heaven."
And: "He removes the sin done through the five sūnās by the five sacrifices."
And the śruti: "This indeed is his common food which is eaten here. He who worships this does not turn away from sin, for this is mixed."
And the mantra:
"The thoughtless one obtains food in vain.
I speak the truth - it is death for him.
He nourishes neither the noble one nor a friend.
The solitary eater becomes a solitary sinner."
This is also indicative of the five great sacrifices, the smārta and śrauta daily duties. The meaning of Prajāpati's statement is: Daily duties must necessarily be performed by one who is eligible. (13)
viśvanāthaḥ: Those who eat the food remaining after the vaiśvadeva and other sacrifices are freed from all sins committed by the five sūnās. The five sūnās mentioned in the smṛti are:
kaṇḍanī peṣaṇī cullī udakumbhī ca mārjanī |
pañca-sūnā gṛhasthasya tābhiḥ svargaṁ na vindati || Thus. ||13||
baladevaḥ: Those saints who worship Viṣṇu, the Lord of all, who is situated as the limbs of Indra and others in the form of sacrifice, and who eat the remnants, thereby sustaining their bodily existence, are devotees of the Lord of all, the sacrificial person. They are freed from all sins that have accumulated since beginningless time and obstruct self-realization. But those sinners who are engrossed in sin eat only sin. The meaning is that those who cook grains etc. given by the sacrificial person situated as the limbs of various deities for self-worship, and nourish themselves by consuming that cooked food. The sinful nature of the cooked grains etc. is stated due to their transformation into the form of sin. ||13||
(3.14)
annād bhavanti bhūtāni parjanyād anna-saṁbhavaḥ |
yajñād bhavati parjanyo yajñaḥ karma-samudbhavaḥ ||
śrīdharaḥ: One should perform karma (action) also because it is the cause of the turning of the wheel of the world - this is stated in three verses beginning with "annāt". Living beings are produced from food transformed into semen and blood. Food is produced from rain (parjanya). That rain comes from sacrifice. And that sacrifice arises from karma. The meaning is that it is properly accomplished by the karma of the activities of the sacrificer etc.
agnau prāstāhutiḥ samyag ādityam upatiṣṭhate |
ādityāj jāyate vṛṣṭir vṛṣṭer annaṁ tataḥ prajāḥ ||14||
madhusūdanaḥ: Karma should be performed not only because of Prajāpati's statement, but also because it is the cause of the turning of the wheel of the world - this is stated in three verses beginning with "annāt". Living beings, i.e. the bodies of creatures, are born from food that is eaten and transformed into semen and blood. The origin of food, i.e. the production of food, is from rain (parjanya). This is established by direct perception. Here he states the utility of karma: Rain comes from sacrifice, i.e. from the unseen potency called dharma resulting from kārīrī and other rituals like the agnihotra. How the agnihotra oblation produces rain is explained in the Ṣaṭpraśnī which is in the form of a dialogue between Janaka and Yājñavalkya in the Aṣṭādhyāyī section. And Manu has said:
agnau prāstāhutiḥ samyag ādityam upatiṣṭhate |
ādityāj jāyate vṛṣṭir vṛṣṭer annaṁ tataḥ prajāḥ || [Manu 3.76]
And that sacrifice, called dharma, which is subtle, arises from karma, i.e. is accomplished by the activities of the priests and sacrificer. For the prescribed karma is the cause of the apūrva of sacrifice. ||14||
viśvanāthaḥ: One should definitely perform sacrifice also because it is the cause of the turning of the wheel of the world - this is stated in "annād". Living beings come from food - thus food is the cause of beings. Since the bodies of creatures are produced from food transformed into semen and blood, the cause of that food is rain. Since food is produced by rains, the cause of that rain is sacrifice. Since the appropriate rain-giving clouds are produced only by sacrifice performed by people, the cause of that sacrifice is karma, since sacrifice is accomplished only through karma in the form of the activities of priests and sacrificers. ||14||
baladevaḥ: After creating the creatures, Prajāpati, the Supreme Lord, created sacrifice at that very time for their sustenance. Therefore, following the Supreme Lord, sacrifice must be performed - this is stated in two verses beginning with "annāt". Living beings are produced from food, i.e. rice etc. Since their bodies are formed from it transformed into semen and blood. The origin of that food is from rain (parjanya). And rain comes from, i.e. is accomplished by sacrifice. This is the meaning.
agnau prāstāhutiḥ samyag ādityam upatiṣṭhate |
ādityāj jāyate vṛṣṭir vṛṣṭer annaṁ tataḥ prajāḥ || Thus according to the Manu-smṛti. ||14||
(3.15)
karma brahmodbhavaṁ viddhi brahmākṣara-samudbhavam |
tasmāt sarva-gataṁ brahma nityaṁ yajñe pratiṣṭhitam ||
śrīdharaḥ: Similarly, "karma" etc. Know that karma in the form of the activities of the sacrificer etc. originates from brahma. Brahma means the Veda. Know it to arise from that. As the śruti states: "This Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda and Atharva Veda are the breath of this great being" [Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.10]. Since sacrifice arises from the imperishable in this way, sacrifice is extremely dear. Therefore, though all-pervading, the imperishable brahma is eternally, i.e. always, established in sacrifice. It is said to be established in sacrifice because it is attained by sacrifice as the means. Like "Lakṣmī always resides in effort." Or, karma is the root of the wheel of the world. Therefore, though the Veda called brahma is situated in all things that convey established meanings through mantras and arthavādas, it is always established in sacrifice in the form of its purport. Thus the meaning is that sacrificial karma etc. should be performed. ||15||
madhusūdanaḥ: And that produces the unseen potency. Brahmodbhavam means that which has brahma, i.e. the Veda, as its source or authority. Know that only karma enjoined by the Veda produces the unseen potency, not that propounded by heretics. This is the meaning. Now what is the distinction of the Veda compared to heretical scriptures, due to which only dharma propounded by the Veda and no other should be followed? To this he says: Brahma, meaning the Veda, originates from the imperishable (akṣara), i.e. it has originated from the faultless Supreme Self like an exhalation without conscious effort. Thus being unauthored, it is free from all suspicion of defects and its statements generate valid knowledge. This is the purport. And so the śruti states: "This Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, history, Purāṇas, sciences, Upaniṣads, verses, aphorisms, explanations and commentaries are the breath of this great being." [Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.10]
Therefore, the all-pervading, all-illuminating, eternal and indestructible Brahma known as Veda is established by its essence in the sacrifice called dharma which is beyond the senses, as it directly originates from the Supreme Self. Thus, the meaning is that one should practice only the dharma taught by the Vedas, abandoning false dharmas propounded by heretics. ||15||
Viśvanātha: The cause of that karma is Brahma, the Veda. Since the impulse to perform sacrifice arises only from hearing the injunctive statements of the Veda, the cause of that Veda is the imperishable Brahma, as the Veda originates from Brahma alone. As the śruti states: "This Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda and Atharvāṅgirasa are the exhalation of this great being." Therefore, the all-pervading Brahma is established in sacrifice, meaning that Brahma is also attained through sacrifice. Although here the sequence of cause and effect from food up to Brahma is stated, among those only sacrifice is prescribed as the duty to be performed by the scriptures. That alone is relevant here, as the smṛti states:
"The oblation properly offered in the fire reaches the sun.
From the sun arises rain, from rain food, and from that beings." ||15||
Baladeva: Know that karma consisting of the actions of priests etc. originates from Brahma-Veda. The meaning is: Know its origin from that. And know that Brahma in the form of Veda originates or manifests from the imperishable Supreme Lord, as it is heard: "This Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda and Atharvāṅgirasa are the exhalation of this great being." Since sacrifice is very dear to Him for the sustenance of His created beings, therefore the all-pervading, all-encompassing Brahma is eternally, always established in sacrifice. The meaning is that Brahma is attained through that alone. ||15||
(3.16)
evaṁ pravartitaṁ cakraṁ nānuvartayatīha yaḥ |
aghāyur indriyārāmo moghaṁ pārtha sa jīvati ||
Śrīdhara: Since the cycle of karma etc. has thus been set in motion by the Supreme Lord Himself for the accomplishment of human goals, the life of one who does not perform it is in vain - this is stated in "evam" etc. From the Brahman called Veda which is the words of the Supreme Lord, arises the engagement of people in karma. From that, the completion of karma. From that, rain. From that, food. From that, beings. Then again, the engagement of beings in karma in the same way. One who does not follow this cycle thus set in motion, who does not perform it, is aghāyuḥ - one whose life is full of sin. Because he delights only in sense objects through the senses, not in karma for the worship of the Lord. Therefore he lives in vain, uselessly. ||16||
Madhusūdana: It is so. What is the result of this? He says "evam" (thus). From the Supreme Lord comes the manifestation of the eternal, flawless Veda that illuminates everything. From that comes the knowledge of karma (action), from that comes the practice and arising of dharma (righteousness). From that comes rain, from that food, from that beings, and again in the same way the engagement of beings in karma. Thus the wheel set in motion by the Supreme Lord sustains the entire world. He who does not follow or practice this is aghāyuḥ (living sinfully), a sinful liver who lives mogham (in vain). O Pārtha, for such a person death is better than living, as there is possibility of practicing dharma in another birth. Thus is the meaning. And so says the śruti (scripture): "Now this self (ātman) is a world for all beings. In that he offers oblations, by that he is the world of the gods. In that he recites, by that he is the world of the seers. In that he offers to the fathers and desires offspring, by that he is the world of the fathers. In that he gives shelter to men and food to them, by that he is the world of men. In that he finds grass and water for animals, by that he is the world of animals. In that in his houses wild animals, birds, and even ants find sustenance, by that he is their world." [Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.16]
He distinguishes the knower of Brahman by saying indriyārāma (delighting in the senses). Because he delights in sense objects through the senses, therefore being eligible for karma (action), by not performing it, he accumulates only sin and lives in vain. This is the intention. ||16||
Viśvanātha: He speaks of the fault in not practicing this in "evam" (thus). The wheel is set in motion by the front and back parts. From sacrifices comes rain. From rain comes food. From food comes man. From man again comes sacrifice. From sacrifice comes rain. Thus the wheel which he does not follow, does not turn by performing sacrifices, he is aghāyuḥ (living sinfully), his life pervaded by sin. Who will not sink into hell? This is the idea. ||16||
Baladeva: He speaks of the fault in not performing sacrifice in "evam" (thus). From the supreme Brahman comes the manifestation of the Veda, from that which reveals Brahman comes sacrifice, from that rain, from that food, from that beings, and again in the same way the engagement of beings in karma. Thus the wheel that sustains the entire world, set in motion by the Supreme Lord, the Lord of creatures, which person does not follow, that person, averse to the Supreme Lord, is aghāyuḥ (living sinfully), a sinful liver who lives mogham (in vain). O Pārtha, that he delights only in sense objects through the senses, and not in sacrifice which is pleasing to the Supreme Brahman, and in eating the remnants of that. ||16||
(3.17)
But for the man who delights only in the self, is satisfied with the self, and is content in the self alone, there is no duty to perform.
Śrīdhara: Having thus spoken of karma-yoga for the ignorant for purification of the inner organ, starting with "not by abstaining from actions", he now speaks of the uselessness of karma for the wise in two verses starting with "yas tu" (but he who). He whose delight, joy is in the self alone. And thus satisfied in the self alone, fulfilled by experiencing his own bliss. Therefore content in the self alone, free from desire for enjoyment. For him there is no karma (action) to be done. ||17||
Madhusūdana: But he who does not delight in the senses, who sees the highest truth, even though not performing karma which is the cause of the wheel of the world and so on, does not incur fault, because he has accomplished what is to be accomplished. He says this in two verses starting with "yas tu" (but he who). For one who delights in the senses experiences joy in garlands, sandalwood, women, etc., satisfaction in delicious food and drink, etc., and contentment in gaining cattle, sons, gold, etc., and in the absence of disease, etc. Because in the absence of these objects, those with attachment are seen to have dissatisfaction, lack of fulfillment, and discontent, delight, satisfaction and contentment are particular states of mind established by the witness consciousness. But one who has attained the supreme self, due to the absence of duality-perception and due to the extreme insignificance of sense pleasures, does not desire them, as stated in "To the extent that there is use for a well". Therefore, due to the absence of delight, satisfaction and contentment directed towards non-self objects, directly experiencing the self as supreme bliss, non-dual, he is metaphorically called "delighting in the self", "satisfied with the self", "content in the self". And so says the śruti (scripture): "Playing in the self, delighting in the self, active - he is indeed the best of the knowers of Brahman." And the word "ca" (and) in "ātma-tṛptaś ca" (and satisfied with the self) is for the purpose of carrying over the word "eva" (only). The word "mānavaḥ" (man) is to say that any human who is like this is accomplished, not only by excellence of being a Brahmin, etc. And the word "ca" (and) in "ātmany eva ca saṁtuṣṭaḥ" (and content in the self alone) is for the purpose of conjunction. For one who is like this, due to the absence of cause for eligibility, there is no duty, Vedic or worldly, to be performed. ||17||
Viśvanātha: Thus it has been said that even one with desire should perform karma if unable to be desireless. But he who has climbed to the level of knowledge due to purity of inner organ does not perform constant or desire-motivated actions. He says this in two verses starting with "yas tu" (but he who). Delighting in the self means absorbed in the self. Because satisfied with the self, fulfilled by experiencing self-bliss. Not fulfilled in the self and also somewhat fulfilled in external sense enjoyment. He says not this, in the self alone, not in external sense enjoyment, for him there is no karma (action) to be done as a duty. ||17||
Baladeva: But for him who has seen the self by the knowledge that is the nature of dharma, arising in the mirror of mind polished by the desireless karma and worship of me that I have spoken of, there is no karma to be done. He says this in two verses starting with "yas tu" (but he who). He who has delight in the self, his own nature qualified by the eight qualities beginning with freedom from sin, when seen. Satisfied by the self, by the self-luminous bliss when seen, not by food and drink, etc. And content in the self alone, such a self, not in dance, song, etc. For him who is like this, there is no karma to be done for seeing that, because he always sees the nature of the self. ||17||
(3.18)
Not by action does he have any purpose, nor by inaction does he have any here.
Nor does he have any dependence on any being for any purpose.
Śrīdhara: He states the reason for that with "not" etc. By action, he has no purpose, no merit. Nor by inaction is there any sin whatsoever. Being free of ego, he is beyond injunctions and prohibitions. Even so, thinking "Therefore that is not pleasing to these gods, that humans know this" due to the śruti mentioning the possibility of obstacles created by gods for liberation, and in order to remove that, one might doubt that the gods should be served through actions. To address this, it is said that among all beings, from Brahmā down to immobile things, he has no dependence whatsoever. Dependence itself is vyapāśraya. The meaning is that he has no dependence on liberation to be resorted to. The absence of obstacles is stated by śruti itself. Thus the śruti: "Neither gods nor non-existence have power over him, for he becomes the Self of these." The word ha is an indeclinable meaning "also". The meaning of the śruti is that even the gods are not able to obstruct the state of Brahman for one who knows the truth of the Self. But obstacles created by gods occur only before the arising of true knowledge. Since it is said "That Brahman which humans know is not pleasing to these gods," dislike is mentioned only for knowledge of Brahman, thereby indicating their role as obstacle-makers only there. ||18||
Madhusūdana: Now, one might think that even for the knower of the Self, action might be for the sake of prosperity, for the highest good, or for avoiding sin. To address this, he says "not" etc. For that one delighting in the Self, there is no purpose or result characterized by prosperity or the highest good from performed action, since he has no desire for heavenly or other prosperity. And because the highest good is not attainable through action. Thus the śruti: "Having examined the worlds attained by action, a Brahmin should become dispassionate. The uncreated is not by the created." The meaning is: The eternal liberation, being uncreated, is not attained by created action. The exclusion of even knowledge as a means is indicated by the word "only". For the highest good, being of the nature of the Self, is eternally attained; non-attainment is merely due to ignorance. And that is removed merely by knowledge of truth. When that is removed by knowledge of truth, that knower of the Self has no purpose to be accomplished by action or knowledge - this is the meaning.
One might think that even for such a one, actions should be performed to avoid sin. To address this, he says "nor by inaction". The word is in the locative case with the sense of condition. By non-performance of obligatory duties, there is no purpose here in the form of censure or incurring sin. He states the reason for this in all cases in the second half. The word ca indicates reason. Because this knower of the Self has no dependence on any purpose among all beings, from Brahmā down to immobile things. The meaning of the sentence is: There is no purpose to be accomplished by action, depending on any particular being. Therefore, for him the done and not done are purposeless, as per the śruti: "The done and not done do not torment him." Since the śruti says "Neither gods nor non-existence have power over him, for he becomes the Self of these," stating that even gods are not able to prevent his liberation, the intention is that he does not need to perform actions of worshipping gods even for the sake of avoiding obstacles.
Such a knower of Brahman is described by Vasiṣṭha in terms of seven stages:
"The first stage of knowledge is called Good Desire.
The second is Investigation, the third is Subtlety of Mind.
The fourth is Attainment of Sattva, then the fifth is Non-attachment.
The sixth is Absence of Objects, the seventh is called Beyond the Fourth."
There, the first is the desire for liberation preceded by discrimination between eternal and non-eternal things, etc., culminating in the fruit. Then approaching a teacher and reflecting on Vedānta statements through listening and contemplation is the second. Then through practice of meditation, the mind becomes one-pointed, capable of grasping subtle objects - this is the third. These three stages are the means, called by yogis the waking state, because of the appearance of the world as separate. Thus it is said:
"O Rāma, these three stages are established as the waking state.
In waking, this world is seen as it is, with the notion of difference."
Then from Vedānta statements arises the non-dual direct realization of the unity of Brahman and Self - this fourth stage is the fruit called Attainment of Sattva, called the dream state, because the entire world appears as unreal. Thus it is said:
"When steadiness in non-duality is attained and duality has subsided,
They see the world like a dream - this is the fourth stage."
The yogi who has reached this fourth stage is called a knower of Brahman. The fifth, sixth and seventh stages are subdivisions of the state of living liberation. There, the state of non-dual absorption attained through practice of absorption with concepts, when the mind is restrained, is called Non-attachment or deep sleep, because of awakening by itself. This yogi is a superior knower of Brahman. Then through maturity of that practice, the long-lasting state is called Absence of Objects or profound deep sleep. Because awakening happens only through others' efforts for the yogi established in this. He is an excellent knower of Brahman. It is said:
"Reaching the fifth stage called the state of deep sleep,
He gradually falls to the sixth stage called profound deep sleep."
But that state of absorption from which there is no awakening either by oneself or others, due to complete absence of perception of difference. Rather, he always remains absorbed in that, his bodily activities carried out by others through the life-breath impelled by the Supreme Lord without his own effort, abiding everywhere as the mass of supreme bliss - that is the seventh stage, the fourth state. One who has attained this is called the best knower of Brahman. It is said:
"Abiding in the sixth stage, he would attain the seventh stage.
He has attained something, or rather he has attained nothing.
The seventh stage of yoga is called bodiless liberation.
It is beyond speech, peaceful, the limit of the stages of yoga."
Referring to this, it is remembered in the Śrīmad Bhāgavata:
"The perfected one does not see the perishable body, whether standing or fallen,
For he has attained his true nature.
Like a drunkard unaware of his clothing,
Whether put on or taken off by fate."
"As long as its originating karma lasts, the body too follows fate.
The seer with breath observes it along with the world.
But established in absorption transcending that,
He does not again experience it like a dream, awakened to reality." [Bhā.Pu.11.13.36-37]
And the śruti: "Just as a sloughed-off snakeskin lies dead, cast off on an anthill, so does this body lie. But this bodiless, immortal life-force is Brahman alone, light alone."
Here is a summary:
"The fourth stage is knowledge, the prior three are the means.
The latter three are proclaimed as states of living liberation."
Here, the intention is that even one who has ascended the first three stages, though ignorant, is not eligible for ritual action, what to speak of the knower of truth, one distinguished by that, or the living liberated. ||18||
viśvanātha: There is no purpose or fruit in performing actions. There is also no fault in not performing actions, because among all beings in the universe, from Brahmā down to immovable objects, there is no one to be depended upon for one's own benefit. In the Purāṇas and other texts, the word vyapāśraya is used in the same way, as in: "For those who carry out devotion to Lord Vāsudeva," and "Those who take shelter of Him become purified" [bhā.pu.2.7.46]. In the beginning, upāśraya means "cause of existence," and the prefix upa is seen to have no additional meaning.
baladeva: There is no purpose or fruit in performing actions for His sake. There is also no harm in not performing actions that are not means for His realization. This is due to the natural realization of the self. One should not perform actions to please the gods out of fear of obstacles created by them. The śruti declares the gods as enemies of knowledge: "Therefore it is not pleasing to the gods that men should know this." Regarding this, it is said "na ca." For the wise person who has attained self-realization, among all beings, gods and humans, there is no one to be depended upon through actions for the sake of unobstructed self-satisfaction. Before the dawn of knowledge, obstacles are created by the gods, but when self-satisfaction is attained, these obstacles do not occur due to its power. As it is heard: "Neither gods nor non-existence have power over him; indeed, he becomes their self." The word "hana" is used in the sense of "api." Even the gods cannot diminish the self-satisfaction of one who has realized the self. Indeed, for them, the self becomes most dear, just like for him.
(3.19)
Therefore, always perform your prescribed duties without attachment. By performing actions without attachment, a person attains the Supreme.
śrīdhara: Since karma is not useful for the knower of truth but for others, therefore you should perform karma, as stated in "tasmāt." Being unattached, free from attachment to results, perform the obligatory daily and occasional duties properly. Because a person performing actions without attachment attains the supreme liberation through purification of mind and knowledge.
madhusūdana: Since you are not such a knower of truth, but a seeker of liberation qualified for action, being unattached, free from desire for results, always, not just sometimes, perform the obligatory duties prescribed by śruti for life, such as "Brahmins seek to know this through recitation of the Vedas, sacrifices, charity, and austerity with fasting," as enjoined by śruti for knowledge. Perform properly the nitya and naimittika karmas according to the scriptures. Because a person performing actions for the sake of the Lord without attachment attains the supreme liberation through purification of sattva and attainment of knowledge. Only such a person is a true person, not others.
viśvanātha: Therefore, you are not qualified to ascend to the level of knowledge. And being endowed with proper discrimination, you have no right to perform desire-motivated actions. Therefore, perform only desireless actions, as stated in "tasmāt." Perform the obligatory duties prescribed as necessary. The supreme means liberation.
baladeva: Since karma is not useful only for one who has attained self-realization, therefore you should perform the prescribed duties. Being unattached, free from desire for results. One attains or realizes the supreme self, which is different from the body, etc., in its true nature.
(3.20)
Even Janaka and others attained perfection through action alone. You should also perform action, considering the welfare of the world.
Śrīdhara: Here he cites proper conduct as authority with "through action alone". The meaning is that through action alone, becoming pure-minded, they attained perfection, which is complete knowledge. Even if you consider yourself to be one of complete knowledge, still performing action is beneficial, as he says with "considering the welfare of the world" etc. The "welfare of the world" means engaging people in their own dharma. When I perform action, all people will also do so. Otherwise, following the example of the wise, the ignorant may fall by constantly abandoning their own dharma and obligatory actions. Thus, seeing at least this purpose of protecting the world, how can you not perform action? The meaning is you should not abandon it. ||20||
Madhusūdana: But for one desiring knowledge, renunciation characterized by abandoning all actions is prescribed for undertaking hearing, reflection and meditation in order to attain establishment in knowledge. So not only does the knower have no duty to act, but also one desiring knowledge who is detached. Thus Arjuna's doubt that "As one detached and seeking knowledge, I too should abandon actions" is removed by the Lord stating that even kṣatriyas are not eligible for renunciation, with "through action alone".
Janaka and others like Janaka and Ajātaśatru, who are well-known in śruti and smṛti as knowledgeable kṣatriyas, attained perfection, meaning establishment in knowledge attained through hearing etc., through action alone together with action, not by abandoning action. Since this is so, you too as a kṣatriya, whether seeking knowledge or knowledgeable, should perform action - this is to be connected. In the injunctive statement "A brāhmaṇa, after giving up desire for sons, wealth and worlds, should wander as a mendicant", being a brāhmaṇa is intended, just as being a kṣatriya is in "A king desiring sovereignty should perform the rājasūya sacrifice". And from the smṛti "There are four āśramas for a brāhmaṇa, three for a kṣatriya, and two for a vaiśya". In the Purāṇa also it is said:
"This dharma of wearing the liṅga of Viṣṇu is for those born from the mouth (brāhmaṇas). It is not praised for those born from the arms (kṣatriyas) and thighs (vaiśyas)."
Thus the absence of renunciation for kṣatriyas and vaiśyas is stated. Therefore it is appropriate for the Lord to say "Janaka and others attained perfection through action alone".
From smṛtis like "All dharmas depend on the king; the king is the upholder of dharma", a kṣatriya should necessarily perform action as the promoter of varṇa and āśrama, as he says with "world". "Welfare of the world" means engaging people in their respective dharmas and turning them away from wrong paths. Seeing this, and from the word "also" seeing the proper conduct of Janaka and others, you should certainly perform action - this is the connection. Though knowledgeable, having a body begun by the karma that led to your kṣatriya birth, you are fit to perform action for the welfare of the world with the fruits of your prārabdha karma like Janaka and others, but not to abandon it since you have not attained brāhmaṇa birth - this is the intention. Knowing such intention of the Lord, the commentator has concluded that renunciation is only for brāhmaṇas, not for others. But the author of the Vārtika has stated as mere rhetorical argument that renunciation exists even for kṣatriyas and vaiśyas - this should be understood. ||20||
Viśvanātha: Here he cites proper conduct as authority with "through action". Or if you consider yourself eligible for knowledge, even then perform action for the sake of teaching the world, as he says with "world". ||20||
Baladeva: Here he cites proper conduct as authority with "through action alone". Those with purified minds attained perfection characterized by self-realization through action alone as the means. The word "alone" qualifying "through action" excludes its impossibility, like "white as a conch". Thus hearing etc. are not excluded. Some say it means "along with action like sacrifice, as well as hearing etc."
But for one established, there is no performance of action in self-realization, as was said. If you ask "Why instruct me in action when I am fully established and have realized the self and the supreme self?", to that he replies with "world". True, you are such, still perform action for the welfare of the world. When I perform action, all people will perform action. Otherwise, following my example, even the ignorant may fall by abandoning action. Thus protecting the world is the fruit of that. ||20||
(3.21)
Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.
śrīdharaḥ: He explains how performing actions leads to bringing people together in the verse beginning with "yad". Even ordinary people perform those very same actions. Whatever that great person considers authoritative, whether it be the scriptures on action or on renunciation of action, the people also follow that. ||21||
madhusūdanaḥ: Anticipating the doubt "Even if I perform actions, why would people follow that?", he explains that it is because they imitate the conduct of the great, in the verse beginning with "yad yad". Whatever action a great person, such as a prominent king, performs - whether good or bad - ordinary subordinate people perform that very same action. They do not do anything else independently.
Anticipating the doubt "Why don't people reject the unscriptural conduct of the great by examining scripture, and instead follow only what is scriptural?", he shows that even in understanding, the ordinary follow the great in the phrase beginning with "sa yad". Whatever that great person considers authoritative, whether worldly or Vedic, the people also follow that as authoritative. They do not independently consider anything authoritative. Thus, the implication is that you, as a prominent king, must certainly perform actions for the protection of the people, as it is proper that the behavior of people follows that of leaders. ||21||
viśvanāthaḥ: He explains the method of bringing people together in the verse beginning with "yad yad". ||21||
baladevaḥ: He explains the method of bringing people together in the verse beginning with "yad yad". Whatever action a great person performs and however he performs it, even a lesser person performs that action in the same way. Whatever scripture that great person considers authoritative regarding that action, even the lesser people who follow him pursue and adhere to that very same thing. The meaning is that a lesser person desiring welfare should follow the scriptural conduct of the great. Thus, any whimsical conduct of a powerful or great person is excluded, because even though done by a great person, it lacks scriptural sanction. ||21||
(3.22)
O Pārtha, there is nothing in the three worlds that should be done by Me, nor is there anything unobtained that should be obtained, yet I continue to engage in action.
śrīdharaḥ: Here he gives himself as an example in three verses beginning with "na me". O Pārtha, there is nothing I must do. Since in all three worlds there is nothing unattained that should be attained by Me. Nevertheless, I continue to engage in action, meaning I certainly perform action. ||22||
madhusūdanaḥ: Here he gives himself as an example in three verses beginning with "na me". O Pārtha, there is absolutely nothing in all three worlds that I must do. Because there is no unattained result that I should obtain. Nevertheless, I certainly engage in action, meaning I certainly perform action. By addressing him as "Pārtha", he shows "You, born in a pure kṣatriya (kṣatriya) lineage and as the son of a hero's son, are extremely similar to Me and should act just like Me." ||22||
viśvanāthaḥ: Here he gives himself as an example in three verses. ||22||
baladevaḥ: To illustrate that even a great person unconcerned with the fruits of action should perform scriptural actions for the welfare of the people, he gives himself as an example in three verses beginning with "na me pārtha". There is nothing I, the Lord of all whose will is always fulfilled and whose desires are always satisfied, must do. For action is to be performed by one desiring results. And I, who am myself the supreme result and the shelter of all results, have no need for action. He shows this in "triṣu". Because in all the worlds, there is no result to be obtained by action that is unattained or not already possessed by Me - everything is already Mine. Nevertheless, I certainly perform scriptural action, as he states in "varta". ||22||
(3.23)
If I were not to ever engage in action tirelessly, O Partha, people would follow my path in every way.
Sridhara: He shows the destruction of the world in case of inaction with "If I" etc. Jatu means "ever". If I, being untired and not lazy, were not to engage in action, would not perform action, then people would follow my path, would imitate - that is the meaning. ||23||
Madhusudana: Thinking "You need not engage in welfare of the world as it would be fruitless", he says "If I" etc. If I, being untired and not lazy, were not to ever engage in action, would not perform actions, then O Partha, people who are qualified for action would follow the path of me who am superior, in every way, by all means. ||23||
Visvanatha: Anuvartate means "would imitate" - that is the meaning. ||23||
Baladeva: "If I" etc. If I, the Lord of all, though having all purposes accomplished, having descended in the Yadu dynasty, were to not ever engage in action prescribed by scripture appropriate for that dynasty, would not perform that, being attentive and not lazy, then taking me as an example, people would follow the path of me who am superior, in the form of abandoning conduct prescribed for the dynasty, and thus they would fall - that is the meaning. ||23||
(3.24)
These worlds would perish if I did not perform action. I would be the cause of mixing of castes and would destroy these people.
Sridhara: Then what? Therefore he says "would perish" etc. They would perish, would be destroyed due to loss of dharma. And I alone would be the cause of the mixing of castes that would then occur. Thus I alone would destroy the people, would make them impure. ||24||
Madhusudana: It is indeed appropriate for people to follow the path of you who are superior. What is the fault in following? Therefore he says "would perish" etc. If I, the Lord, were not to perform action, then due to the impossibility of action for Manu and others who follow me, these all worlds would perish, would be destroyed, due to the loss of action which is the cause of maintenance of the world. And I alone would be the cause of mixing of castes. And by that I alone would destroy all these people by loss of dharma. How could I, the Lord who has engaged for the welfare of the people, destroy all of them? - that is the intention.
Another explanation of "Whatever a great person does" etc.: Not only considering the welfare of the world should you act, but also because it is the conduct of the superior - thus he says "Whatever" etc. Thus, whatever conduct is mine who am superior, exactly that should be performed by you who follow me, not independently anything else - that is the meaning. What is your conduct which I should follow? - to this expectation, it is shown by the three verses starting with "For me, O Partha" etc. ||24||
Visvanatha: They would perish, taking me as an example and not performing dharma, they would fall. And there would be mixing of castes, of that too I alone would be the cause. Thus I alone would destroy the people, would make them impure. ||24||
Baladeva: What would happen then? He says "would perish" etc. If I, the most superior of all, were not to perform action prescribed by scripture, then these worlds would perish, would lose their proper bounds. When that is lost, whatever mixing would occur, of that too I alone would be the cause. And thus I, the lord of creatures, would destroy these people by the fault of mixing, would make them impure. And thus, of me who is celebrated by sruti as the maintainer of the bounds of the worlds in "This is the bridge for maintaining, for non-confusion of these worlds", there would be breaking of those bounds. Thus, even though Hari instructs like this, whatever independent conduct is seen of Him who desires the happiness of His devotees, that indeed should never be performed by inferiors, as it is not supported by His prescriptive statements and as it is divine. As said by the venerable Suka:
The word of the Lords is true,
and so is their conduct sometimes.
What agrees with their own words,
the wise should practice that.
Never should one who is not a Lord
practice this even in mind.
Practicing it foolishly one perishes,
like [one who drinks] the poison from the ocean. [Bha.Pu.10.33.31-2] ||24||
(3.25)
saktāḥ karmaṇy avidvāṁso yathā kurvanti bhārata |
kuryād vidvāṁs tathāsaktaś cikīrṣur loka-saṁgraham ||
śrīdharaḥ: Therefore, even a knower of the Self should perform action out of compassion for the sake of guiding the world, as he concludes with "saktāḥ". Just as the ignorant perform actions while being attached to them, the wise one should also act, though unattached, desiring to guide the world. ||25||
madhusūdanaḥ: Now, for you as the Lord performing actions for the sake of guiding the world, there is no harm due to the absence of the sense of doership. But for me as an individual soul performing actions for the sake of guiding the world, there may be an overshadowing of knowledge due to the sense of doership. Therefore he says "saktāḥ". Just as the ignorant perform action while being attached to it with a sense of doership and desire for results, so should the wise knower of the Self act desiring to guide the world. But he should act without attachment, without a sense of doership or desire for results. The address "bhārata" indicates that you are qualified to understand the meaning of the scriptures as explained, either due to being born in the Bharata lineage or due to being devoted to knowledge. ||25||
viśvanāthaḥ: Therefore even a well-established man of knowledge should perform action, as he concludes with "saktāḥ". ||25||
baladevaḥ: Therefore even you, though well-established, should perform your prescribed duties according to the Vedas for the welfare of the world - with this intention he says "saktāḥ". Just as the ignorant perform action while being attached to it, desiring its fruits, so should the wise one act. But he should act without attachment, free from desire for fruits. The rest is clear. ||25||
(3.26)
na buddhi-bhedaṁ janayed ajñānāṁ karma-saṅginām |
joṣayet sarva-karmāṇi vidvān yuktaḥ samācaran ||
śrīdharaḥ: Now, is it not proper to teach knowledge of truth out of compassion? No, he says "na buddhi-bhedam". He should not cause a change in the understanding of the ignorant who are attached to action, by teaching about the non-doer Self. He should not divert their minds from action. Rather, he should encourage them. The meaning is he should make the ignorant perform actions. How? By being attentive and performing them himself. If their understanding is changed, due to loss of faith in actions and non-arising of knowledge, they would fall from both paths. This is the idea. ||26||
madhusūdanaḥ: Now, what is the reason that world welfare should be accomplished only through performance of action, and not through teaching knowledge of truth? To this he says "na buddhi". He should not cause a change in the understanding of the ignorant who are attached to action with a sense of doership and desire for results, thinking "I will do this action and enjoy its fruit", by teaching about the non-doer Self. Rather, being attentive, the wise one desiring to guide the world should perform all actions prescribed for the unenlightened, inspire faith in them, and encourage them with love. If the understanding of the unqualified is changed by teaching, there would be loss of faith in actions and non-arising of knowledge, leading to fall from both paths. As it is said:
"One who speaks 'All is Brahman' to an ignorant person or one only half-awakened,
Is thereby consigned to the great hells." ||26||
viśvanāthaḥ: Enough of this dullness of action. You should renounce action and become fulfilled like me through the practice of knowledge - he should not cause such a change in understanding for those attached to action, who have impure minds and are attached only to actions. Rather, he should engage them in action saying "You will become fulfilled by performing desireless action." Here, he should set an example by performing actions himself.
Now, this conflicts with Ajita's statement:
"The wise one, knowing the highest good, does not speak of action to the ignorant.
The best physician does not give unwholesome food to a patient, even if desired."
True. But that refers to instructing devotion, while this refers to instructing knowledge. There is no contradiction, since knowledge depends on purity of mind, which depends on desireless action, while devotion is independently powerful and does not depend on purity of mind. If he is able to inspire faith in devotion, then he may change the understanding of the action-oriented, since those with faith in devotion are not qualified for action, as stated:
"One should perform actions until detachment arises,
Or until faith arises in hearing about Me, etc."
"One who abandons all duties and worships Me alone is the best of men."
"Abandoning all duties, take refuge in Me alone."
"If one falls while worshipping the lotus feet of Hari, having abandoned one's prescribed duties, even though immature..."
This should be carefully considered based on such statements. ||26||
baladevaḥ: Furthermore, the wise one desiring the welfare of the world should be attentive, as he says "na buddhi". Even a well-established wise one should not cause a change in the understanding of the ignorant who are attached to action and dull in their faith in action. He should not divert their minds from their dedication to action by saying "Like me, you should become fulfilled through knowledge alone, not through actions." Rather, being himself engaged in actions attentively and performing them properly with all their parts, he should lovingly encourage all prescribed actions. The meaning is he should make the ignorant perform actions. The idea is that if their understanding is changed, due to loss of faith in actions and non-arising of knowledge, they would fall from both paths.
Ajita's statement:
"The wise one, knowing the highest good, does not speak of action to the ignorant.
The best physician does not give unwholesome food to a patient, even if desired."
should be interpreted as referring to those other than those attached to action. ||26||
(3.27)
prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ |
ahaṁkāra-vimūḍhātmā kartāham iti manyate ||
śrīdharaḥ: If even the wise must perform actions, then what is the difference between the wise and the unwise? Anticipating this doubt, he shows the difference between the two in two verses beginning with prakṛteḥ. Actions performed in all ways by the guṇas (senses) of prakṛti (nature). He thinks "I alone am the doer, I do these". The reason for this is - being deluded by ego, superimposing the self onto the senses and other objects. ||27||
madhusūdanaḥ: Showing the difference between the wise and unwise in terms of presence or absence of the sense of doership, even though both perform actions, he elaborates on the meaning of the verse "saktāḥ karmaṇi" in two verses beginning with prakṛteḥ. Prakṛti is māyā (illusion), consisting of the guṇas sattva, rajas and tamas, which is ignorance, the supreme power of the Lord, as per the śruti "Know māyā as prakṛti and the wielder of māyā as Maheśvara". Actions, both worldly and Vedic, performed in all ways by the guṇas or modifications of that prakṛti in the form of effects and causes, one whose self (antaḥkaraṇa) is deluded by ego, the notion of being the aggregate of effects and causes, unable to discriminate his true nature, who has the notion of self in non-self, thinks "I am the doer" and "I do these actions" due to superimposition of doership. The suffix tṛn in kartā prevents the genitive case as per the rule "na lokāvyaya-niṣṭhā-khal-artha-tṛṇām" [Pā. 2.3.69]. ||27||
viśvanāthaḥ: If even the wise perform actions, then what is the difference between the wise and unwise? Anticipating this doubt, he shows their difference in two verses beginning with prakṛteḥ. The unwise thinks "I alone am the doer, I do" those actions which are performed in all ways by the guṇas (senses), which are the effects of prakṛti. ||27||
baladevaḥ: He states the difference between the knower and the ignorant, even though both perform actions, in two verses beginning with prakṛteḥ. The person whose self is deluded by ego thinks "I am the doer of actions". The genitive case is prohibited by the rule "na lokāvyaya-niṣṭhā". Actions are both worldly and Vedic. He describes what kind of actions: performed by the guṇas, which are the effects of prakṛti, the Lord's māyā, namely the body, senses and vital airs, as impelled by the Lord. This should be understood - the individual soul, which is of the nature of consciousness, whose purpose is indicated by "I", is the doer, and being overcome by the impressions of sense enjoyment from beginningless time, desiring that enjoyment, clinging to prakṛti which is near to it for that purpose, with its self deluded by ego which is the effect of that (prakṛti), devoid of true knowledge of itself, identifying with the body etc., thinks "Actions accomplished by the body etc. which are products of prakṛti and by the Lord, are done by me alone". The doership of the doer, the soul, is accomplished by three - the body etc., and the Supreme Soul who impels everything. It is not accomplished by the individual soul alone. That the individual soul thinks it is accomplished by itself alone is due to delusion by ego - this will be explained in the three verses at the end of the last chapter beginning with "The substratum and the doer" [Gītā 18.14]. Where it will be described in "Prakṛti is said to be the cause in the agency of body and senses" [Gītā 13.18] that the agency of body, senses etc. belongs to prakṛti, even there it cannot be considered to belong to prakṛti alone, since its activity is accepted only in conjunction with puruṣa (soul). Therefore the agency of puruṣa is unavoidable - this will be explained. ||27||
(3.28)
tattvavit tu mahā-bāho guṇa-karma-vibhāgayoḥ |
guṇā guṇeṣu vartanta iti matvā na sajjate ||
śrīdharaḥ: The wise person does not think in that way, he says in tattvavit. The division of the self from the guṇas - "I am not of the nature of the guṇas". The division of the self from actions - "Actions are not mine". One who knows the truth of these two divisions of guṇas and actions does not have the fixation of doership. The reason for this is - "guṇāḥ". The guṇas (senses) operate on the guṇas (sense objects), not me - thinking thus. ||28||
madhusūdanaḥ: The wise person does not think in that way, he says in tattvavit. Tattvavit is one who knows the truth, the reality. The word tu indicates his distinction from the ignorant. Of what does he know the truth? To this he says guṇa-karma-vibhāgayoḥ. Guṇas are the body, senses and inner organs which are the basis of ego, and karma are their activities which are the basis of the sense of "mine" - thus guṇa-karma is taken as a single compound. Vibhāga is that which is divided, separate from all inert and mutable things as their illuminator - the unattached self which is of the nature of self-luminous consciousness. Guṇa-karma and vibhāga form a compound. One who knows the truth, the reality of those two - guṇa-karma and vibhāga - the illuminated and illuminator, the inert and conscious, the mutable and immutable, thinking that the guṇas which are of the nature of instruments operate on the guṇas which are sense objects, due to being mutable, but not the immutable self, does not become attached, does not have the fixation of doership like one who does not know the truth. The address "O mighty-armed one" suggests that being endowed with the characteristics of a great person as described in physiognomy texts, you should not be ignorant like ordinary people.
Or, tattvavit can be one who knows the truth of the division of guṇas and the division of karma. In this interpretation, the purpose of using the word vibhāga when guṇa-karmaṇoḥ alone would suffice needs to be considered. ||28||
viśvanāthaḥ: One who knows the truth of the two divisions of guṇas and karma. There, the division of guṇas is sattva, rajas and tamas. The division of karma is the differences in the effects of sattva etc. - the deities, senses and objects. One who knows the truth, the nature of those. The guṇas, the deities and senses like eyes etc. which are to be employed, operate on the guṇas, the sense objects like form etc. But I am not a guṇa, nor am I any effect of the guṇas, nor do I have any relation to the guṇas or effects of guṇas - thinking thus, the wise person does not become attached. ||28||
Baladeva: The wise one, however, says that it is not so, stating "tattva-vit tu" (but the knower of truth). He is the knower of truth regarding the division of guṇas (qualities) and division of karma (actions). He who knows the true nature of the distinction from the guṇas, the senses, and the actions produced by them, understands "I am not the body composed of guṇas and karma" - this is the meaning. Indeed, the guṇas, the senses, impelled by their respective deities, engage in their objects like sound, etc., and illuminate them. But I, being of the nature of unattached consciousness and bliss, am different from them, do not engage in them in that form, and do not illuminate them - thinking thus, they do not become attached to them. Rather, they become attached to the self alone. Here also, by the word "thinking", the agency of the jīva (individual soul) should be understood. ||28||
(3.29)
prakṛter guṇa-saṁmūḍhāḥ sajjante guṇa-karmasu |
tān akṛtsna-vido mandān kṛtsna-vin na vicālayet ||
Śrīdhara: He concludes "na buddhi-bhedam" (do not create division in intellect) with "prakṛter" (of nature). Those who are thoroughly deluded by the guṇas of prakṛti (nature) such as sattva, etc., become attached to the guṇas, the senses, and their actions. The knower of the whole, the omniscient, should not disturb those of incomplete knowledge, those of dull intellect. ||29||
Madhusūdana: Thus, having stated that the wise should not create a division in the intellect of the unwise despite the similarity in performance of actions, he concludes: Those who are thoroughly deluded by the guṇas of the aforementioned prakṛti (māyā), considering the body and other modifications as the self due to non-manifestation of their true nature, become attached to the actions, i.e., the functions of those very guṇas - the body, senses, and inner organs, firmly believing "we perform actions for their fruits". The knower of the whole, the perfect knower of the self, should not disturb these people of incomplete knowledge, who are attached to karma, who identify with the non-self, who are dull-witted, who have not attained eligibility for knowledge due to impurity of mind. He should not make them deviate from their faith in karma - this is the meaning. However, those who are not dull-witted, who have pure inner organs, naturally deviate upon the rise of discrimination, having attained eligibility for knowledge - this is the intention.
The words kṛtsna (whole) and akṛtsna (incomplete) are explained by the authors of the Vārtika in accordance with the meaning of the scriptures as referring to the self and non-self respectively:
From statements like "sad eva" etc., the whole entity is non-dual.
How can there be an origin of something contradictory to that, an incomplete entity?
That which, even when seen, leaves something unseen, and something else remains,
And when unseen, something is seen - such is called incomplete.
Due to the non-self having parts and multiple attributes, even when one pot etc. qualified by some attribute or some part is known, the same object qualified by another attribute or another part remains unknown. And something else like cloth etc. remains unknown as well. Similarly, even when that pot etc. is unknown, cloth etc. could be known. Thus, due to the non-knowledge of that and something else even when it is known, and due to the knowledge of something else even when it is unknown, it is called incomplete. The whole, however, is only the non-dual self, as there is no remainder of anything to be known when it is known - this is the meaning of the two verses. ||29||
Viśvanātha: If the jīvas (individual souls) are separate from the guṇas and their effects and unconnected to them, then how are they seen to be attached to sense objects? To this he says "prakṛter guṇa-saṁmūḍhāḥ" (deluded by the guṇas of prakṛti). Overwhelmed by them, they become deluded, just as a person possessed by a spirit considers himself to be that spirit. Similarly, the jīvas overwhelmed by the guṇas of prakṛti consider themselves to be those guṇas. Therefore, they become attached to the actions of the guṇas, i.e., the sense objects. The knower of the whole, the omniscient, should not disturb those of incomplete knowledge, those of dull intellect. He should not try to make them realize "You are a jīva separate from the guṇas, not a guṇa", but should make them perform desireless karma which removes the influence of the guṇas. For a person possessed by a spirit does not regain normalcy even if told a hundred times "You are not a spirit but a human", but only through the application of remedies like medicine, gems, mantras, etc. that remove the possession - this is the idea. ||29||
Baladeva: He concludes "na buddhi-bhedaṁ janayet" (should not create division in intellect) with "prakṛter" (of nature). People deluded by the guṇa of prakṛti, i.e., its effect, the ego, considering the body etc. as the self like one possessed by a spirit, become attached to the actions, i.e., the functions of the guṇas - the body and senses. The knower of the whole, the perfect knower of the self, should not disturb those of incomplete knowledge, of little knowledge, those dull-witted who are lazy in grasping the truth of the self. He should not desire to make them grasp the truth that "You are pure consciousness and bliss, different from the guṇas and karma", but following their inclination, should aim to make them gradually inclined towards the truth of the self through Vedic karmas - this is the idea. ||29||
(3.30)
Dedicate all actions to me with a mind focused on the Self, becoming free from desire and selfishness, and fight without agitation.
śrīdharaḥ: Thus even one who knows the truth should perform action. But you are not yet a knower of truth. Therefore, just perform action, as he says in "mayi" etc. Dedicate all actions to me by offering them. With a mind focused on the Self, with the view "I perform action under the control of the inner controller". Free from desire means without selfish motives. Thus, being free from the sense of "I" thinking "This action is a means to attain my goal, for my sake", and being free from agitation means having abandoned sorrow. ||30||
madhusūdanaḥ: Thus, even though the performance of action is the same, the difference between the ignorant and the wise has been stated through attachment to doership and its absence. Now, stating the distinction of offering to the Lord and absence of desire for fruits even for an ignorant seeker of liberation compared to a non-seeker, he firmly establishes Arjuna's eligibility for action due to his ignorance in "mayi" etc. Dedicating all actions - worldly and Vedic of all types - to me, the Lord Vāsudeva, the supreme controller, omniscient, controller of all, the Self of all, with a mind focused on the Self thinking "I am the agent under the control of the inner controller, I perform actions for that very Lord, like a servant for a king" - with this understanding, offering them, free from desire, without selfish motives, free from the sense of "mine" regarding one's own body, son, brother etc., without agitation. Sorrow is referred to by the word "fever" because it is the cause of burning pain. Being free from sorrow caused by infamy in this world and the next, falling into hell etc., you who desire liberation should fight, that is, perform prescribed actions - this is the intent. Here, offering to the Lord and desirelessness are common to all actions for a seeker of liberation. Freedom from ego and freedom from sorrow should be understood as applying only to fighting in the present context, since attachment and sorrow are not relevant in other cases. ||30||
viśvanāthaḥ: Therefore you, with a mind focused on the Self, that is, on me - this is the meaning. Thus "adhyātmam" is an avyayībhāva compound. And then, the mind which is in the Self is adhyātma-cetas, with that mind fixed on the Self alone, not on sense objects - this is the meaning. Offering actions to me, dedicating them, free from desire, without selfish motives, free from ego, devoid of the sense of "mine" in all things, fight. ||30||
baladevaḥ: In "mayi" etc. - Since it is thus, therefore you who are well-established should fight, having offered all actions to me, the supreme Lord, with a mind focused on the Self, with knowledge concerning the truth of one's own self, like a servant to a king. Free from attachment to doership. Just as a servant under the king's control performs actions by his order, so you under my control should perform those actions by my order, desiring to uplift the worlds. With the mind which is in the Self - this is an avyayībhāva compound in the sense of the locative case. Free from desire means without desire for fruits, thinking "I act by the master's order". Thus being free from ego, thinking "These actions are means to attain my goal, for my sake". Being without agitation means having abandoned sorrow caused by killing relatives. "Fight" is said because Arjuna is a kṣatriya. The meaning of the sentence is that seekers of liberation should perform the duties prescribed for their stage of life. ||30||
(3.31)
Those human beings who constantly practice this teaching of mine with faith and without envy are also liberated from actions.
śrīdharaḥ: Thus he states the benefit of performing action in "ye me" etc. Having faith in my words. Without envy means not seeing fault, thinking "He makes me engage in painful action". Those who practice this teaching of mine, even they, gradually performing action, are liberated from actions like perfect knowers. ||31||
madhusūdanaḥ: He states in "ye me" etc. that performing prescribed actions without desire for fruits, with the understanding of offering to the Lord, results in liberation through purification of the mind and attainment of knowledge. This teaching of mine, namely performing prescribed actions without desire for fruits, which is eternal as it is taught by the eternal Veda, passed down through beginningless tradition, or necessary, or always to be done. Human beings, any humans, since actions are prescribed for human beings. Having faith means confidence in what is taught by scripture and teachers, though not directly experienced, thinking "This is indeed so". Without envy means not finding fault with virtues. Here it refers to not thinking of me, the compassionate Lord Vāsudeva who is the well-wisher of all, as cruel for engaging one in painful action. Those who practice, they too are liberated from actions, meaning dharma and adharma, like perfect knowers, through purification of the mind and attainment of knowledge. ||31||
viśvanāthaḥ: To engage one in following his instruction, he says "ye me" etc. ||31||
baladevaḥ: Stating the result for those who follow his view which is the secret of the Vedas, he suggests its superiority in "ye me" etc. Constantly means always, or as obtained from beginningless tradition being taught by the Vedas. Having faith means firmly convinced. Without envy means free from finding fault, thinking "What is the use of this laborious fruitless action that is said to be liberating?" The word "api" (also) is used for emphasis. Or, those who practice this teaching of mine, those who are unable to practice but have a little faith in it, and those who have faith but do not envy it, they too - this is the meaning. Even if unable to practice now, by faith in it and absence of envy towards it their faults are destroyed, and practicing it somewhat at the end, they are liberated - this is the idea. ||31||
(3.32)
But those who, filled with envy, do not practice this teaching of mine - know them to be deluded in all knowledge, senseless and ruined.
śrīdharaḥ: He states the fault in the opposite case in "ye tv etad" etc. But those who do not practice, know them to be senseless, devoid of discrimination, and therefore deluded in all knowledge regarding action and Brahman, and ruined. ||32||
madhusūdanaḥ: Having stated the benefit in the positive case, he states the fault in the negative case in "ye tu" etc. The word "tu" (but) indicates lack of faith in contrast to those with faith. Thus those who, lacking faith due to atheism, filled with envy meaning finding fault, do not follow this teaching of mine - know them to be senseless, of corrupt mind, and therefore deluded in all knowledge, confused in various ways regarding proof, object and purpose in all matters of action and Brahman, both with qualities and without qualities, completely unfit, ruined, fallen from all human goals. ||32||
viśvanāthaḥ: He states the fault in the opposite case in "ye tv" etc.
baladevaḥ: He states the fault in the opposite case in "ye tv etad" etc. But those who do not practice, know them to be senseless, devoid of discrimination, and therefore deluded in all knowledge regarding action and Brahman, and ruined. ||32||
(3.33)
Even a man of knowledge acts according to his own nature. Beings follow their nature. What can restraint do?
Śrīdhara: If that is so, then why don't all people, restraining their senses and becoming desireless, perform only their prescribed duties, since it leads to great results? To address this, he says "sadṛśam" etc. Prakṛti (nature) means the innate disposition dependent on past karmic impressions. Even one who knows virtue and vice acts in accordance with his own nature. What more needs to be said about the ignorant acting thus? Since all beings follow their nature, what can restraint of the senses accomplish? The meaning is that nature is more powerful. ||33||
Madhusūdana: But seeing fear in transgressing your command, like that of a king, why don't they follow your view without envy? Or why are they opposed to the accomplishment of all human goals? To address this, he says "sadṛśam" etc. Prakṛti refers to the impressions of dharma, adharma, knowledge, desires, etc. from previous births that are manifested in the current birth and are extremely powerful. This is established by the śruti "Knowledge and action cling to him, as well as his former wisdom." Every creature, even a knower of Brahman, acts in accordance with his own nature, as per the maxim "There is no distinction between animals and others in this regard." Whether knowing virtue and vice or not, he acts thus - what more to say of a fool? Therefore, all beings follow their nature, even if it leads to the loss of human goals. What can my restraint or that of a king accomplish in this case? The meaning is that one cannot turn people away from sins due to the intensity of attachment. Even knowing it leads to great hell, due to the power of bad habits, they engage in sins and are not afraid of the fault of transgressing my command - this is the idea. ||3.33||
Viśvanātha: But why are those who do not follow your view as the Supreme Lord not afraid of punishment by you, like punishment by a king? True. Those who indulge their senses indeed cannot understand the command of the king or the Supreme Lord, even if they are discriminating. That has become their nature. Thus he says "sadṛśam" etc. Even one who knows that "If I commit this sin, I will go to hell, be punished by the king, and gain infamy" - even such a discriminating person acts in accordance with his nature arising from the burden of long-practiced sins. Therefore, they follow their nature. Restraint through scripture by me or by the king can purify and enlighten those with impure minds through desireless action yoga, and those with pure minds through knowledge yoga, but not those with extremely impure minds. However, even those with the most sinful natures can be uplifted by devotional yoga arising from my spontaneous mercy alone. As it is said in the Skanda Purāṇa:
"O divine sage, you are blessed! By your mercy, even a lowly hunter attained ecstasy in a moment and was liberated." ||33||
Baladeva: But it is stated in scripture that those who transgress your view as the Supreme Lord will be punished. Why are they not afraid of that? To address this, he says "sadṛśam" etc. Prakṛti means one's bad habits active since beginningless time. Even one who knows the scriptural punishment acts according to that nature - what to speak of the ignorant? Therefore, all beings follow their nature, even though it leads to the loss of human goals. What can restraint or scriptural knowledge accomplish for one devoid of good association? It cannot overcome the power of bad habits. But for one with good association, it destroys even powerful bad habits, as per smṛti texts like "The saintly alone cut off his mental vices with their words" [Bhāgavata Purāṇa 11.26.26]. ||33||
(3.34)
Attachment and aversion for the objects of each sense are fixed. One should not come under their sway, for they are one's enemies.
Śrīdhara: If a person's activity is thus dependent on nature alone, then injunctive and prohibitive scriptures would become useless. Anticipating this doubt, he says "indriyasya" etc. The repetition "indriyasyendriyasya" indicates "for each and every sense." Attachment for what is favorable and aversion for what is unfavorable in their respective objects - these attachment and aversion are fixed, bound to occur. And activity in accordance with them is the nature of beings. Nevertheless, scripture enjoins that one should not come under their control. For they are the enemies of an aspirant for liberation. This is the idea: When attachment and aversion arise through remembering sense objects, nature forcefully impels the heedless person into great misfortune, like a swift current. But scripture engages him in worship of the Supreme Lord etc. which obstructs attachment and aversion to sense objects, even before that. Thus, like one who has boarded a boat before falling into a deep current, he does not meet with misfortune. In this way, abandoning natural animal-like activity, one should engage in dharma - this is stated. ||34||
Madhusūdana: If all living beings are under the control of nature, there would be no scope for worldly or Vedic human effort, and injunctions and prohibitions would become meaningless. And there is no one devoid of nature for whom they could be meaningful. To address this, he says "indriyasyendriyasyārthe" etc. The repetition "indriyasyendriyasya" indicates "for all the senses" in their objects - sound, touch, form, taste and smell. Similarly for the objects of the organs of action like speech etc. Attachment for what is favorable even if prohibited by scripture, and aversion for what is unfavorable even if enjoined by scripture - these attachment and aversion are fixed for the objects of each sense, established as favorable and unfavorable, not occurring indiscriminately everywhere. The scope for human effort and scripture is that one should not come under their control. How? A person's nature, aided by the absence of knowledge of powerful undesirable consequences and the knowledge of desirability, generates attachment and impels one towards prohibited acts like eating kalañja. Similarly for aversion. When scripture informs of the powerful undesirable consequences of the prohibited, mere knowledge of visible desirability cannot generate attachment, like for food mixed with honey and poison. Similarly, when scripture informs of the powerful desirable consequences of the enjoined, mere knowledge of undesirability cannot generate aversion, as in eating etc. Thus, unobstructed scripture engages a person in the enjoined and turns him away from the prohibited. So by the strength of scriptural discrimination and knowledge overcoming the causes of natural attachment and aversion, nature cannot impel a person with scriptural vision on the wrong path. Hence there is no unwanted consequence of scripture and human effort becoming meaningless.
One should not come under the control of those attachment and aversion, should not be dependent on them in engaging or desisting, but should destroy them by scriptural contrary knowledge destroying their causes. For those attachment and aversion, born of natural faults, are the enemies of a person seeking the highest good, obstructing the path of welfare like robbers for a traveler. This has been explained at length in the śruti beginning "There were two classes of Prajāpati's descendants: the gods and the asuras. The gods were the younger, the asuras the elder. They competed in these worlds." - describing activity contrary to scripture due to natural attachment and aversion as the state of asuras, and scriptural activity as the state of gods. This is elaborate, so we stop here. ||34||
viśvanāthaḥ: Because in people of bad character the scriptures of injunctions and prohibitions have no effect, therefore as long as the bad character arising from habitual sin has not developed, one should not let the senses roam as they wish - this is stated by the repetition of indriyasya indriyasya, meaning "of each sense". For all the senses, in their objects, in their respective domains, even though forbidden by scripture, there is attachment to merely seeing and touching the body of another's wife, giving gifts to her, etc. Similarly, even though enjoined by scripture, there is aversion to seeing, touching, serving, and distributing wealth to gurus, brahmins, holy places, and guests. These two, attachment and aversion, remain as specific characteristics. One should not come under their control. Or alternatively, attachment to sense objects like seeing women, and aversion when that is obstructed by someone - for one who is pursuing the goals of human life, sometimes there is attachment to things agreeable to the mind like tasty and oily foods, and aversion to things disagreeable to the mind like tasteless and dry foods, as well as attachment to seeing and hearing about one's own children etc., and aversion to seeing and hearing about an enemy's children etc. One should not come under the control of these two - this is how some explain it. ||34||
baladevaḥ: Now if people's activities are controlled by their nature, then are not the scriptures of injunctions and prohibitions useless? In response to this, indriyasyendriyasya - by the repetition, "all" is indicated. And thus for the knowledge senses like hearing etc., in their objects like sound etc., and for the action senses like speech etc., in their objects like speaking etc., there is attachment. And for things that are unfavorable, even though enjoined by scripture, like conversing with good people, serving good people, going to holy places etc., there is aversion. In this way attachment and aversion are established, situated in what is favorable and unfavorable, not without regularity - this is the meaning. Even though people's activities are in accordance with those, still a person desiring the highest good should not come under the control of those attachment and aversion. For they are his enemies, creating obstacles, like robbers for a traveler. This is what is being said - The impressions that have been active since beginningless time, combined with the knowledge of being a means to desired ends and the absence of knowledge of leading to bad results, produce attachment even to forbidden things like conversing with another's wife etc. and impel a person to engage in them. Similarly, combined with the absence of knowledge of being a means to desired ends and the knowledge of leading to undesired ends, they produce aversion even to enjoined things like conversing with good people etc. and turn one away from them. The scriptures, when heard in the company of good people, by teaching that forbidden things lead to bad results, turn one away even from what is agreeable to the mind by producing aversion. By teaching that enjoined things lead to good results, they produce attachment even to what is disagreeable to the mind and impel one to engage in them. Thus the scriptures of injunctions and prohibitions are not useless. ||34||
(3.35)
śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ para-dharmāt svanuṣṭhitāt |
sva-dharme nidhanaṁ śreyaḥ para-dharmo bhayāvahaḥ ||
śrīdharaḥ: Then, because one's own dharma like fighting etc. is difficult to perform properly as it is painful, and another's dharma like non-violence is easy to perform, and because they are equal as dharma, for those wishing to engage in that, he says śreyān etc. Even if somewhat deficient, one's own dharma is better, more praiseworthy, than another's dharma which is fully performed with all its parts complete. The reason for this is - Even death while engaged in one's own dharma like fighting is best, as it leads to heaven etc. But another's dharma brings fear, as being prohibited it leads to hell. ||35||
madhusūdanaḥ: Now if one must perform scriptural duties, abandoning animal-like activities impelled by natural attraction and aversion, then why not do what is easy like eating alms food? Why engage in extremely painful fighting? To this he says śreyān etc. Better, more praiseworthy, is one's own dharma which is enjoined for one's particular social class and life stage, even if deficient, even if performed without all parts complete, than another's dharma which is not enjoined for oneself, even if fully performed with all parts complete. For dharma is not known through any authority other than the Veda, so that there could be an inference that another's dharma should also be performed like one's own dharma because it is dharma. According to the maxim "Dharma is that which has injunction as its defining characteristic." Therefore even death while situated in one's own dharma, even if somewhat incomplete, is better, more praiseworthy, than living while situated in another's dharma. For death while situated in one's own dharma brings fame in this world and attainment of heaven etc. in the next world. But another's dharma brings fear, as it produces infamy in this world and leads to hell in the next world. Therefore another's dharma should be abandoned just like natural activities impelled by attachment and aversion etc. - this is the meaning.
Thus far the attainment of the highest good for those who accept the Lord's teaching has been stated, as well as the falling from the path of the highest good for those who do not accept it. Many reasons have been given for falling from the path of the highest good, engaging in desire-motivated actions with expectation of results, and engaging in sinful actions alone, starting with "But those who find fault with this" etc. This is summarized in the following verse:
Loss of faith, fault-finding, corrupt mentality in the foolish, being controlled by material nature, excessive attachment and aversion, and fondness for another's dharma - these have been stated as leading to the wrong path. ||35||
viśvanāthaḥ: And then, because fighting is impossible to perform properly without attachment, aversion etc., and because another's dharma like non-violence is easy to perform, and because they are equal as dharma, for one wishing to engage in that, he says śreyān etc. Even if somewhat deficient, even if impossible to perform perfectly, one's own dharma is better than another's dharma which can be performed well, which is complete in all good qualities. The reason for this is - In one's own dharma etc.
"False dharma, another's dharma, semblance, comparison, and cheating - these five branches of adharma one who knows dharma should abandon like adharma." - as stated in the [Bhā.pu.7.15.12] ||35||
Baladeva: But it has been said that one should abandon the natural tendency driven by attraction and aversion, common to animals etc., and instead follow the duties prescribed in the scriptures. When the heart is purified by dharma, such tendencies cease. The scriptures prescribe duties like nonviolence as well as fighting. Therefore, if nonviolence and gleaning are considered the highest dharma because fighting etc. cannot be done without attraction and aversion, to that he says "better" (śreyān).
The dharma prescribed by the Veda for one's own caste and life stage, even if imperfect or lacking in some aspect, is better when practiced than the dharma of another that is practiced completely. For example, nonviolence etc. is the duty of a Brahmin, while fighting etc. is the duty of a Kshatriya. Dharma cannot be known through any means other than the Veda, just as form cannot be perceived by any sense organ other than the eye. As Jaimini says: "Dharma is that which is characterized by injunction." The reason for this is: Death while performing one's own duty is better, as it does not incur sin and allows for righteous conduct in the next life, thus fulfilling one's desires. But another's duty is fearful and produces undesirable results, as it may incur sin due to not being prescribed. There is no exception in the cases of Parasurama and Visvamitra, for though born in those families, their actions arose from their innate greatness. Still, their struggles are remembered. Hence Drona and others are often criticized for following Kshatriya dharma.
But it is heard that Kshatriyas like Daivarati took to renunciation, so how can nonviolence etc. be considered another's duty? True, but for one qualified for renunciation due to exhaustion of tendencies from previous life stages, nonviolence etc. is prescribed as one's own duty. Hence it is said "established in one's own duty." ||35||
(3.36)
Arjuna said:
But impelled by what does a man commit sin,
Unwillingly even, O Varshneya (descendant of Vrishni), as if forced by some power? ||36||
Sridhara: It was said "One should not come under their control" [Gita 3.34]. Thinking this impossible, Arjuna says "But". Varshneya means one descended in Vrishni's lineage. O Varshneya! Impelled by what does this man commit sin, which is of the nature of misfortune, even though not wishing to do so? This question arises from the observation that even when desire and anger are restrained by the power of discrimination, a person again engages in sin. So there may be some other root cause that impels them. ||36||
Madhusudana: To determine the cause of engagement in desirable and prohibited actions in order to follow the Lord's view after removing that cause, Arjuna said: "But". Previously the root of misfortune was stated as "For a person who dwells on sense objects" [Gita 2.62] etc. And now it has been extensively explained as "Deluded by the gunas of prakriti (nature)" [Gita 3.29] etc. Are all these causes equally important? Or is there one main cause and the others merely assist it? In the first case, great effort would be needed to remove each separately. In the second, everything would be accomplished by removing just one. So tell me, impelled by what cause does this man, who does not follow your view and is completely deluded, commit sin - all actions that lead to misfortune, whether desirable acts done with desire for results like the Chitra sacrifice, prohibited acts that harm enemies like the Shyena sacrifice, or many kinds of forbidden acts like eating kalanja - even though he does not wish to do them himself? Yet he does not perform the actionless supreme goal you have taught, even though he wishes to. This is not possible without dependence on something. So tell me what forcefully impels him like a king compelling a servant, making him perform such actions that go against your teaching and lead to all misfortunes, even though he knows this - tell me so I can completely uproot it. O Varshneya, descended in Vrishni's lineage, my maternal grandfather's family - by this address he indicates "I am the son of your cousin sister, so you should take care of me." ||36||
viśvanāthaḥ: As it is said, "rāga and dveṣa are established" [Gītā 3.34], here regarding what is prohibited by scripture. He asks "atha" about rāga in the sense objects prohibited by scripture, such as conversing with another's wife. The meaning is that even though one does not wish to engage in sin due to knowledge of scriptural injunctions and prohibitions, desire arises properly in the one being impelled, as if by force, due to the impelling influence of the instigator.
baladevaḥ: Arjuna asks "atha kena" regarding what was said earlier about rāga being established even in what is prohibited by scripture, such as conversing with another's wife. O descendant of the Vṛṣṇi lineage! Impelled as if by force, one commits sin even without desiring to do so, due to knowledge of the meaning of prohibitive scriptures. Desire arises even in the one being impelled, as connected to the desire of the instigator. Is that instigator God or past impressions? The first is not the instigator of sin, being a witness and compassionate. Nor is the latter, being inert. This is the meaning of the question.
(3.37)
The Blessed Lord said:
It is lust, it is anger, born of the rajo-guṇa (and in parentheses: passion),
All-devouring, greatly sinful - know this to be the enemy here.
śrīdharaḥ: The Blessed Lord speaks the answer to this - "It is lust, it is anger." The cause you asked about is indeed lust. But anger was also mentioned by you earlier in "For each sense, the object of sense." True, that is not separate from it. Rather, anger is also this. For lust itself, when obstructed by something, transforms into the nature of anger. Although previously mentioned separately, anger is produced from lust, so with this intention it is spoken of as one. "Born of rajo-guṇa" means thus. By this it is suggested that when rajas is diminished by an increase of sattva, lust is not born. Know this lust to be the enemy here on the path of liberation. And this should certainly be slain by the method to be described. Since it cannot be appeased by charity, it is called "all-devouring." Its food is great, meaning it is difficult to satisfy. Nor can it be appeased by conciliation, since it is "greatly sinful," extremely terrible.
madhusūdanaḥ: Thus questioned by Arjuna, the Blessed Lord spoke the answer established by such śruti statements as "Indeed they say this person is made of desire. As it was in the beginning, this was the Self alone. It desired: 'Let me have a wife, then I will procreate. Then let me have wealth, then I will perform action.'" - "It is lust." That cause you asked about, which forcibly impels one on the path of misfortune, is indeed this great enemy lust. It is the cause of all misfortune for living beings.
But anger is also seen to impel one towards evil acts like black magic, so he says "It is anger." Lust itself, when obstructed by some cause, transforms into the nature of anger. Therefore anger is also just lust. The meaning is that when this great enemy alone is restrained, all human goals are attained.
To know the means of restraining it, he states its cause - "born of the rajo-guṇa." That whose origin is the rajo-guṇa, characterized by pain and activity. Thus the effect conforms to its cause. Although the tamo-guṇa is also its cause, rajas alone is mentioned due to its predominance in pain and activity. By this it is said that when rajas is diminished by the sāttvika state, it also diminishes.
Or, to explain how it impels one on the path of misfortune, he says "born of the rajo-guṇa" which is characterized by activity, etc. For desire, whose nature is longing for objects, having arisen itself, activating rajas, impels a person towards painful action. The intention is that this must certainly be slain.
But conciliation, gifts, creating division, and punishment are the four means, and in the absence of the first three, the fourth punishment should be employed, not force alone. Anticipating this objection, to state the impossibility of the first three, he qualifies it as "all-devouring, greatly sinful." All-devouring means its food is great.
As the smṛti states:
"All the rice and barley on earth, gold, animals and women,
Are not enough for one - knowing this, one should become peaceful."
Therefore it cannot be appeased by gifts. Nor by conciliation and creating division, since it is "greatly sinful," extremely terrible. For impelled by it forcibly, one commits sin even knowing the undesirable result. Therefore know this lust to be the enemy here in saṁsāra.
All this has been elaborated by the vārtika authors in explaining the śruti "This was the Self alone in the beginning":
For the qualified person as stated, when there is independence
In engaging in activity and refraining, why does he engage in the stream of saṁsāra?
But in the path of cessation that completely destroys
The misfortunes of saṁsāra, it should not be said by whom he is forcibly impelled.
Even knowing it to be the ripening of misfortune, he engages.
Such engagement is never seen without dependence.
Therefore for a person seeking the highest good, the impeller towards undesirable action
Should be stated for its removal - this is the meaning of the highest śruti.
This person has not attained the human goal, is full of complete misfortune,
Thus the inert one desired with means the unattained human goals.
Similarly the ignorant one wishes to abandon the misfortunes based in the self,
Being possessed of desire born of ignorance - thus the śruti "Indeed they say."
Some actions are seen here to be without desire for no one.
Whatever a creature does, that is the activity of some desire.
The statement of smṛti "It is lust, it is anger" etc.
Therefore no impeller other than desire is understood.
"Without desire" is a statement of Manu. The rest is clear. (37)
viśvanāthaḥ: This kāma (desire), which is in the form of longing for sense objects, impels a person towards sin. Impelled by it, a person commits sin - this is the meaning. This kāma itself, when seen separately, becomes this visible krodha (anger). Kāma itself, when obstructed by something, transforms into the form of anger - this is the meaning. "Kāma arises from the rajo-guṇa" - this means that tāmasic anger is born from rājasic desire. If it is said that kāma ceases when the desired object is obtained, that is not so, as stated by mahāśana (having great appetite).
As stated in the smṛti:
"All the rice and barley on earth, gold, animals and women,
Are not enough for one person - knowing this, one should attain peace."
The desired objects of kāma are impossible to fulfill. If it cannot be pacified through giving, then it should be brought under control through conciliation and division. To this he says mahā-pāpmā (great evil), atyugraḥ (extremely fierce). ||37||
baladevaḥ: To this the Lord says kāma, etc. Kāma, which is desire for sense objects like sound etc. arising from past impressions, impels a person towards sin even against their will - it is the impeller, this is the meaning. If it is argued that anger is also seen to be an impeller in acts like sorcery, and you have also mentioned it separately in "of the senses", etc., that is true. It is not separate from that, but this kāma itself, when obstructed by some conscious entity, becomes anger. Like milk when mixed with something sour becomes curd. Conquering kāma is itself conquering anger - this is the purport. What kind of kāma? He says rajo-guṇa, etc. By increasing sattva and conquering rajas, kāma would be conquered - this is the meaning. And kāma does not cease by giving the desired object, as he says mahāśana, etc.
As remembered:
"All the rice and barley on earth, gold, animals and women,
Are not enough for one person - knowing this, one should attain peace."
And it cannot be controlled by conciliation or division, as he says mahāpāpmā, etc. That which is extremely fierce, causing transgression of prohibitions by destroying discriminative knowledge - know it to be the enemy here in the practice of charity. And being impossible to pacify by the three means of knowledge etc., it should be slain by punishment, which will be mentioned - this is the purport. The Lord, veiled by karma, is the impeller everywhere like rain. But kāma itself is foremost among evils, hence it is stated thus. ||37||
(3.38)
dhūmenāvriyate vahnir yathādarśo malena ca |
yatholbenāvṛto garbhas tathā tenedam āvṛtam ||
śrīdharaḥ: He shows the enmity of kāma in "dhūmena", etc. Just as fire is covered by its inherent smoke. And just as a mirror is covered by external dirt. And just as an embryo is completely enclosed, covered by the ulba (placenta), the membrane covering the embryo. Similarly, in these three ways, this is covered by that kāma. ||38||
madhusūdanaḥ: He clarifies its being a great evil and enemy through examples in "dhūmena", etc. There, kāma which is subtle, having obtained manifestation in the inner organ before the formation of the body, becomes gross when manifested in the inner organ limited by the gross body formed by the karma that initiates the body. That same kāma becomes grosser when repeatedly rising up in the state of the object being contemplated. That same kāma again becomes grossest when reaching extreme intensity in the state of the object being enjoyed. In the first state, the example is - just as fire, which is self-luminous, is covered by smoke, which is inherent and non-luminous. In the second state, the example is - just as a mirror is covered by dirt which is non-inherent, arising after the production of the mirror. The word "ca" (and) indicates the subsidiary difference and also serves to carry over the verb "is covered". In the third state, the example is - just as an embryo is completely enclosed, covered on all sides by the ulba, the extremely thick membrane covering the embryo. Similarly, in these three ways, this is covered by that kāma.
Here, fire though covered by smoke still performs its characteristic function of burning etc. But a mirror covered by dirt does not perform its characteristic function of reflecting images, due to the obstruction of its quality of clarity, though its form is still perceived. But an embryo covered by the placenta neither performs its function of stretching limbs etc., nor is its form perceived - this is the distinction. ||38||
viśvanāthaḥ: And this is not an enemy to someone in particular, but to everyone - he states this with examples in "dhūmena", etc. The examples are given in order for the mild, intense and extremely intense states of kāma. Fire covered by smoke, though impure, still performs its characteristic function of burning etc. A mirror covered by dirt, due to obstruction of its quality of clarity, does not perform its function of receiving images, though its form is perceived. An embryo covered by the placenta neither performs its function of stretching limbs etc., nor is its form perceived. Similarly, in the mild state of kāma, one is able to remember the supreme truth. In the intense state, one is not able to. In the extremely intense state, this world would indeed be unconscious. ||38||
baladevaḥ: He gives examples for the threefold kāma - mild, moderate and intense - in order with "smoke, dirt and placenta" in "dhūmena", etc. Just as fire covered by smoke, though not blazing, still does some heating etc., a mirror covered by dirt, due to obstruction of its clarity, is not able to receive reflections, and an embryo covered by the placenta is neither able to stretch its limbs etc. nor is it perceived. Similarly, knowledge covered by mild kāma is somehow able to grasp the truth, covered by moderate kāma it is not able to, and covered by intense kāma it is neither able to expand nor is it perceived - this is the meaning. ||38||
(3.39)
Knowledge is covered by this eternal enemy of the wise, in the form of desire, O son of Kunti, which is insatiable like fire.
Śrīdhara: Showing what is indicated by the word "this", he clarifies its enmity in "āvṛtam" etc. This discriminative knowledge is covered by this. For the ignorant, desire is indeed a source of pleasure during enjoyment. But in the end, it turns into enmity. For the wise, however, even at that time it is a source of misery due to awareness of its harmful nature, hence it is called an "eternal enemy". Moreover, though being filled by sense objects, it is insatiable. Being filled, it is like fire due to causing sorrow and distress. By this, eternal enmity towards all is stated. ||39||
Madhusūdana: Thus he elaborates on the summary statement "this is covered by that" in "āvṛtam" etc. Knowledge, by which one knows, refers to the inner organ, discriminative wisdom indicated by the word of the Veda, is covered by this desire. Even so, it might seem desirable due to appearing to cause pleasure at first, so he says "eternal enemy of the wise". For the ignorant sees desire like a friend during sense enjoyment, and knows its enmity when suffering results, thinking "I have been made to suffer by desire". But the wise knows even during enjoyment "I have been led into harm by this". So the discriminating person suffers both during enjoyment and its result due to this. Hence it is an eternal enemy of the wise and should be destroyed in every way.
Then what is its nature? To this he says "in the form of desire". Desire, longing, craving - that is its form. Addressing him as "O son of Kunti" indicates affection by revealing their relationship. But though it should be destroyed by the discriminating, it might seem desirable to the non-discriminating, so he says "insatiable like fire". The word "ca" indicates a simile. That which has no sufficiency is "anala", fire. Just as that cannot be filled by oblations, so this cannot be filled by enjoyment. Therefore, being a constant cause of distress, it should be abandoned by the non-discriminating just like the discriminating. As the smṛti says:
"Desire for sense objects is never satiated by enjoyment,
But grows further like fire fed with ghee." [Bhā.Pu.9.19.14]
Or, since desire in the form of longing ceases when the object is obtained, desire in the form of longing will cease by itself through sense enjoyment, so why insist on abandoning it? To this he says "insatiable like fire". Though longing may be suppressed temporarily when an object is obtained, it reappears again, so obtaining objects does not remove longing. Only seeing the defects in objects removes it. ||39||
Viśvanātha: Desire itself is ignorance for the living being, so he says "āvṛtam" etc. Since it is an eternal enemy, it should be destroyed in every way - this is the idea. "In the form of desire" means in the form of ignorance. The word "ca" means "like". Just as fire cannot be filled by oblations, so desire cannot be filled by enjoyment. As it is said:
"Desire for sense objects is never satiated by enjoyment,
But grows further like fire fed with ghee." [Bhā.Pu.9.19.14] ||39||
Baladeva: He clarifies the stated meaning in "āvṛtam" etc. The knowledge of the wise living being is covered by this eternal enemy in the form of desire - this is the connection. For the ignorant, desire is a friend during sense enjoyment due to pleasure, but becomes an enemy when suffering results. But for the wise, it is a cause of suffering even at that time due to awareness of suffering, hence it is called an "eternal enemy". Therefore it should be destroyed in every way - this is the idea. Moreover, "insatiable" etc. The word "ca" means "like". There, just as fire cannot be filled by oblations, so desire cannot be filled by enjoyment. The smṛti also says thus:
"Desire for sense objects is never satiated by enjoyment,
But grows further like fire fed with ghee." [Bhā.Pu.9.19.14]
Therefore, it is an eternal enemy for all. ||39||
(3.40)
The senses, mind and intellect are said to be its seat. Through these it deludes the embodied soul, veiling its knowledge.
Śrīdhara: Now describing its seat, he states the means of victory in two verses beginning with "The senses". The senses, mind and intellect are said to be its seat, because desire manifests through seeing objects, hearing, etc., through imagination and through determination. Through these senses, etc. which function in seeing, etc. and which are its abode, it deludes the embodied soul by veiling its discriminative knowledge. ||40||
Madhusūdana: For when the enemy's stronghold is known, it can be easily conquered. So he states its seat in "The senses". The senses are those that grasp sound, touch, form, taste and smell - the ears, etc., and those that produce speech, grasping, movement, excretion and pleasure - the voice, etc. The mind is that which imagines, and the intellect is that which determines. These are said to be the seat or abode of this desire. Because through these senses, etc. which perform their respective functions and are its abode, this desire deludes, thoroughly confuses, the embodied soul who identifies with the body, by veiling, covering discriminative knowledge. ||40||
Viśvanātha: Where does it reside? He answers this in "The senses". The seat of this enemy desire is its great fortress capital. The sense objects like sound are its king's territories - this is the idea. Through these senses, etc. it deludes the embodied living being. ||40||
Baladeva: When the enemy desire's fortresses are conquered, its defeat is easy. So he states these in "The senses". The ears, etc., the mind, and the intellect become the seat, in the form of a great fortress capital, for desire, because it manifests through hearing objects, etc., through imagination and determination. The sense objects should be understood as its territories. Through these senses, etc. which move among the objects, this desire deludes the embodied soul, the living being who has a body created by nature and is endeavoring for self-knowledge, meaning it makes him averse to self-knowledge and inclined towards the taste of sense objects. ||40||
(3.41)
Therefore, O best of the Bharatas, first controlling the senses, slay this sinful destroyer of knowledge and realization.
Śrīdhara: Since it is so, therefore. Therefore, first, even before delusion, controlling the senses, mind and intellect, slay, clearly destroy this sinful desire. Or, abandon it. Knowledge pertains to the self. Realization arises from meditation. As the śruti says: "The wise one, realizing That, should cultivate wisdom." ||41||
Madhusūdana: Since it is so. Since desire, having the senses as its seat, deludes the embodied soul, therefore you, first, before delusion, or before restraining desire, controlling the senses - the ears, etc., subduing them. For when these are subdued, control of the mind and intellect is also accomplished, since imagination and determination are causes of misfortune only through the activity of the external senses. So although the senses, mind and intellect were mentioned separately before, here only "the senses" is stated. Or, the mind and intellect are included as senses. O best of the Bharatas, you are capable due to being born in a great lineage. Abandon this desire, the sinful enemy which is the root of all sins. Or, clearly slay it, thoroughly destroy it. This is also concluded by "Slay the enemy." Knowledge arises from scripture and teachers' instructions and is indirect. Realization is direct, its result. It is the destroyer of both knowledge and realization, which are the means of attaining the highest good. ||41||
Viśvanātha: Indeed, when an enemy's abode is conquered, the enemy is conquered - this is the maxim. Thus, among desire's abodes - the senses, etc. - there is increasing difficulty in conquering them in succession. Therefore the senses, though difficult to conquer, are easier to conquer than what follows. Let them be conquered first, he says in "Therefore". Control the senses, meaning even though the mind goes uncontrollably towards others' wives, others' wealth, etc., still restrain the senses from acting in those situations through the operations of the eyes, ears, hands, feet, etc. Slay this extremely terrible, sinful desire. The idea is that by restraining the senses' operations for a long time, even the mind becomes detached from desire. ||41||
Baladeva: Since this enemy in the form of desire covers knowledge through the senses inclined towards sense objects, for one endeavoring for self-knowledge which takes the form of ceasing all sensory activities, therefore you who have a body created by nature, etc., first, right at the beginning for the rise of self-knowledge, controlling all the senses by engaging them in selfless karma yoga which takes the form of their activities, making them inclined towards it, slay this sinful enemy desire. Because it is the destroyer, the coverer, of knowledge - scriptural knowledge about the self as distinct from the body, etc. - and realization - direct experience of such a self. ||41||
(3.42)
The senses are said to be superior; superior to the senses is the mind; superior to the mind is the intellect; and that which is superior to the intellect is He.
Śrīdhara: Where the senses can be controlled by focusing the mind, that shows the true nature of the self as distinct from the body etc., as stated in "indriyāṇi" etc. The senses are said to be superior to the body etc. which are the objects of perception, due to their subtlety and illuminating nature. Thus their distinctness is also implied. The mind, characterized by volition, is superior to the senses as it directs them. The intellect, characterized by determination, is superior to the mind, as volition follows determination. That which is superior to the intellect, existing as its witness and innermost, is the self. "It deludes the embodied one" - the word "embodied" refers to that self which is indicated by "He".
Madhusūdana: If it is argued that although external sense control may be somehow possible, giving up inner desires is extremely difficult, this is not so. "Even the taste for objects ceases when the Supreme is seen" [Gītā 2.59] - here the vision of the Supreme as the means for abandoning desire, denoted by "taste", has been previously stated. Then, anticipating the question "Who is that Supreme, by seeing which desire ceases?", he shows the pure self, denoted by the word "Supreme", as distinct from the body etc. in "indriyāṇi" etc. The five sense organs like hearing etc. are said to be superior to the gross, inert, limited and external body by the learned or the scriptures, due to their subtlety, illuminating nature, pervasiveness and internal location. Similarly, the mind characterized by will and imagination is superior to the senses as it directs them. Superior to the mind is the intellect characterized by determination. For determination, which is ascertainment, indeed precedes volition and other mental functions. That which is superior to the intellect, existing as its illuminator, which was said to delude the embodied one associated with the senses etc. as abodes through obscuring knowledge - that seer of the intellect is the supreme self. "He" refers to the embodied one mentioned two verses earlier, as in "He has entered here". On this topic, the scripture states:
"Superior to the senses are the objects, superior to the objects is the mind;
Superior to the mind is the intellect, superior to the intellect is the great self.
Superior to the great is the unmanifest, superior to the unmanifest is the puruṣa (person).
Nothing is superior to the puruṣa; that is the culmination, that is the highest goal." [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.10-11]
Here, since the superiority of the self alone is the main purport of the statement, and the superiority of the senses etc. is not intended, there is no contradiction with the Lord's statement which expresses a difference of intention by saying "the senses are superior to the objects" instead of "the objects are superior to the senses". The great self, which is the cosmic intellect, is superior to the individual intellects like ours, as stated in the Vāyu Purāṇa: "The great, intellect, knowledge, manifestation, the Lord - these are synonyms for the cosmic intellect." Superior to the great, which is Hiraṇyagarbha's intellect, is the unmanifest, the undifferentiated seed of the entire universe known as māyā, as per the scripture "Know māyā as prakṛti (primordial nature)" and "Then this was undifferentiated". Superior to the unmanifest is the puruṣa, the complete self that illuminates the entire inert realm. Lest one think there could be something else superior to that, it states "Nothing is superior to the puruṣa". Why so? Because "that is the culmination", the end, being the substratum of all. "That is the highest goal" - it means that is also the highest goal well-known in scriptures like "He reaches the end of the path, that supreme abode of Viṣṇu". All this is expressed by "That which is superior to the intellect is He".
Viśvanātha: One should not think that the mind and intellect should be conquered first, as it is impossible. Hence he states "The senses are superior" etc. It means they are superior in the sense of being very powerful and difficult to conquer even for heroes victorious in all ten directions. The mind is superior to even the senses due to its greater power. The idea is that it remains even when the senses are destroyed in dream. The intellect in the form of discernment is superior and more powerful than even the mind. The idea is that it remains in its general form even when the mind is destroyed in deep sleep. That which exists as superior to even the intellect in power, which shines forth even when the intellect is destroyed through cultivation of knowledge - that is the well-known individual self, the conqueror of desire. Thus, in reality, desire can indeed be conquered by controlling the senses etc. through the individual self which is more powerful than all. So there should be no doubt about its possibility.
Baladeva: You may say: As per the analogy of water from a closed tap, desire is destroyed by sense control through disinterested action. But during worldly activities, as per the analogy of water from an open tap, desire may revive when the senses function. To this I say: As stated earlier in "Even the taste ceases on seeing the Supreme" [Gītā 2.59], desire is completely destroyed by the experience of the distinct self. This is shown in two verses starting with "indriyāṇi".
The learned say the senses are superior to the material body, being more subtle than it, unreal like it, and not destroyed when it is destroyed. The mind is superior to the senses, as it directs them in the waking state and remains as the creator of dream kingdoms when they merge into it during sleep. The intellect is superior to the mind, as the volition-based function of the mind proceeds only after the ascertainment-based function of the intellect. That which is superior even to the intellect is the embodied individual self of the nature of consciousness. When experienced as distinct from the body, senses and intellect, it becomes the cause of complete destruction of desire. The Kaṭha Upaniṣad also recites thus:
"Superior to the senses are the objects, superior to the objects is the mind;
Superior to the mind is the intellect, superior to the intellect is the great self." [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.10] etc.
Its meaning is: The objects are superior to the senses as they attract them. The mind is superior to the objects, as sense-object interactions are rooted in the mind. The intellect characterized by determination is superior to the mind characterized by doubt, as sensual enjoyment follows determination. The individual self as the enjoyer is superior to the intellect which is its instrument of enjoyment. And that self is great, being the master of the body, senses and inner organs. Bodily activities will continue due to past habits, like the turning of a wheel. ||42||
(3.43)
Thus, having understood what is superior to the intellect, steadying the self by the self, O mighty-armed one, slay the enemy in the form of desire, which is difficult to conquer.
Śrīdhara: He concludes with "evam" etc. The modifications like desire etc. are produced by the intellect through sense objects etc. The self, however, is unchanging and a witness to that. Having thus understood the supreme self as superior to the intellect, steadying the mind, which is the self, by the self through such resolute intellect, making it unwavering, slay, destroy the enemy in the form of desire. "Durāsadam" means difficult to approach, hard to comprehend. ||43||
Worshipping whom through devotion by one's own dharma, the wise have attained liberation,
That Kṛṣṇa, the supreme bliss, one should please through all actions.
Thus ends the third chapter named Karma-yoga in the Subodhinī, the commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā composed by Śrīdhara Svāmī. ||3||
Madhusūdana: He states the conclusion with "evam" etc. "Even the taste for objects ceases for one who has seen the Supreme" - the one referred to by the word "param" (Supreme) there, that very full self, having understood as superior to the intellect, having directly realized, steadying, making firm the self, the mind, by the self through such resolute intellect, slay, destroy the enemy that obstructs all human goals. O mighty-armed one - this is an appropriate address as it is easy for one with mighty arms to slay enemies. In the form of desire, in the form of craving, difficult to conquer, hard to approach, difficult to comprehend with many particulars - this qualification is for emphasizing the need for greater effort. ||43||
Thus ends the third chapter named Karma-yoga in the Gūḍhārtha-dīpikā, the commentary on the glorious Bhagavad-gītā composed by Śrī Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, disciple of Śrī Viśveśvara Sarasvatī, the wandering renunciate and great swan (paramahaṃsa). ||3||
Viśvanātha: He concludes with "evam" etc. Having understood the individual self as superior to the intellect, having known it as separate from all limiting adjuncts, steadying, making unwavering the self by one's own self, slay, destroy desire, though difficult to conquer. ||43||
In this chapter, he spoke of the predominance of desireless action as the means,
Stating the subordinate nature of knowledge which is to be attained by that.
Thus in the Sārārtha-darśinī, delightful to the hearts of devotees,
The third chapter of the Gītā is indeed connected, connected for the saintly. ||3||
Baladeva: "Evam" etc. Thus, according to my instruction, having understood, experienced the individual self which is superior to the intellect, being distinct from and the director of the entire inert realm beginning with the body, a mass of consciousness and bliss - this is the meaning. Steadying the self, the mind, by the self through such resolute intellect, making it firm in such a self, slay, destroy the enemy in the form of desire. Though difficult to conquer. "O mighty-armed one" is as before. ||43||
Thus ends the third chapter in the commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā Upaniṣad. ||3||
Saturday, August 31, 2024
Bg 3.1-43
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment