श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता

मूल श्लोकः

सत्त्वं रजस्तम इति गुणाः प्रकृतिसंभवाः।

निबध्नन्ति महाबाहो देहे देहिनमव्ययम्।।14.5।।

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Ramanuja

।।14.5।।सत्त्वरजस्तमांसि त्रयो गुणाः प्रकृतेः स्वरूपानुबन्धिनः स्वभावविशेषाः प्रकाशादिकार्यैकनिरूपणीयाः प्रकृत्यवस्थायाम् अनुद्भूताः तद्विकारेषु महदादिषु उद्भूताः महदादिविशेषान्तैः आरब्धदेवमनुष्यादिदेहसंबन्धिनम् एनं देहिनम् अव्ययं स्वतो गुणसम्बन्धानर्हं देहे वर्तमानं निबध्नन्ति देहे,वर्तमानत्वोपाधिना निबध्नन्ति इत्यर्थः।सत्त्वरजस्तमसाम् आकारं बन्धनप्रकारं च आह --

English Translation of Ramanuja's Sanskrit Commentary By Swami Adidevananda

14.5 The three Gunas of Prakrti - Sattva, Rajas and Tamas - are inherent in the essential nature of Prakrti and are particular expressions of it. They can be known only through their effects such as 'brightness' etc. They are not apparent in the unevolved state of Prakrti but become apparent in its transformations as Mahat etc. They bind the self, which is conjoined with bodies such as those of divinities, men etc., composed of the modifications of Prakrti beginning with Mahat and ending with the elements. The self is immutable, i.e., It is not in Its pristine nature conjoined with the Gunas. But the Gunas bind It when residing in the body. The meaning is that they bind It by virtue of the limiting conditions of Its living in the body. Sri Krsna proceeds to speak of the nature of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas and their modes of binding (the self):

English Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary By Swami Gambirananda

14.5 O mighty-armed one-who are possessed of hands which are great and mighty, and extend upto the knees, gunah, the alities are named sattva, rajas and tamas. And they, prakrti-sambhavah, born of Nature, born of Maya which belongs to God; nibadhnanti, bind, as it were; the avyayam, immutable-the immutability has been spoken of in the verse, 'Being without beginning৷৷.,' etc. (13.31); dehinam, embodied being; dehe, to the body. The word guna is a technical term, and is not a ality like colour etc. which inhere in some substance. Nor is it meant here that ality and substance are different. Therefore they are ever dependent on the Knower of the field, just as alities are dependent (on some substance). Being of the nature of ignorance, they bind the Knower of the field, as it were. They come into being, making That (Knower) their sustainer. In this sense it is said that they bind. Objection; Was it not said that the embodied one does not become defiled (see 13.31-2)? So, why as it contrarily said here that 'they bind'? Reply: We have rutted this objection by using the word iva (as it were) in 'they bind, as it were'.