श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता

मूल श्लोकः

त्याज्यं दोषवदित्येके कर्म प्राहुर्मनीषिणः।

यज्ञदानतपःकर्म न त्याज्यमिति चापरे।।18.3।।

 

English Commentary By Swami Sivananda

18.3 त्याज्यम् should be abandoned? दोषवत् (full of) as an evil? इति thus? एके some? कर्म action? प्राहुः declare? मनीषिणः philosophers? यज्ञदानतपःकर्म acts of sacrifice? gift and austerity? न not? त्याज्यम् should be relinished? इति thus? च and? अपरे others.Commentary Some philosophers who follow the doctrine of the Sankhyas declare that all actions,should be abandoned as evil? even by those who are fit for Karma Yoga.Doshavat As an evil All Karmas should be abandoned as involving evil because they cause bondage or that they should be relinished like passion and other such evil tendencies.Others declare that the acts of sacrifice? gifts and austerities should not be given up by those who are fit for Karma Yoga. These are the opinions of some? who are of great understanding.Now listen to Me. I will settle this matter and will tell thee how renunciation should be practised.The subject of the discourse here is about the Karma Yogins only and not about those persons who have gone beyond the path of Karma. It is with reference to the Karma Yogins that these conflicting opinions are held and not with reference to the Jnana Yogins or the Sannyasins who have risen above all worldly concerns.

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Shankaracharya

।।18.3।। --,त्याज्यं त्यक्तव्यं दोषवत् दोषः अस्य अस्तीति दोषवत्। किं तत् कर्म बन्धहेतुत्वात् सर्वमेव। अथवा? दोषः यथा रागादिः त्यज्यते? तथा त्याज्यम् इति एके कर्म प्राहुः मनीषिणः पण्डिताः सांख्यादिदृष्टिम् आश्रिताः? अधिकृतानां कर्मिणामपि इति। तत्रैव यज्ञदानतपःकर्म ऩ त्याज्यम् इति च अपरे।।कर्मिणः एव अधिकृताः? तान् अपेक्ष्य एते विकल्पाः? न तु ज्ञाननिष्ठान् व्युत्थायिनः संन्यासिनः अपेक्ष्य। ज्ञानयोगेन सांख्यानां निष्ठा मया पुरा प्रोक्ता इति कर्माधिकारात् अपोद्धृताः ये? न तान् प्रति चिन्ता।।

ननु कर्मयोगेन योगिनाम् (गीता 3।3) इति अधिकृताः पूर्वं विभक्तनिष्ठाः अपि इह सर्वशास्त्रार्थोपसंहारप्रकरणे यथा विचार्यन्ते? तथा सांख्या अपि ज्ञाननिष्ठाः विचार्यन्ताम् इति। न? तेषां मोहदुःखनिमित्तत्यागानुपपत्तेः। न कायक्लेशनिमित्तं दुःखं सांख्याः आत्मनि पश्यन्ति? इच्छादीनां क्षेत्रधर्मत्वेनैव दर्शितत्वात्। अतः ते न कायक्लेशदुःखभयात् कर्म परित्यजन्ति। नापि ते कर्माणि आत्मनि पश्यन्ति? येन नियतं कर्म मोहात् परित्यजेयुः। गुणानां कर्म नैव किञ्चित्करोमि इति हि ते संन्यस्यन्ति। सर्वकर्माणि मनसा संन्यस्य (गीता 5।13) इत्यादिभिः तत्त्वविदः संन्यासप्रकारः उक्तः। तस्मात् ये अन्ये अधिकृताः कर्मणि अनात्मविदः? येषां च मोहनिमित्तः त्यागः संभवति कायक्लेशभयाच्च? ते एव तामसाः त्यागिनः राजसाश्च इति निन्द्यन्ते कर्मिणाम् अनात्मज्ञानां कर्मफलत्यागस्तुत्यर्थम् सर्वारम्भपरित्यागी (गीता 14।25) मौनी संतुष्टो येन केनचित् (गीता 12।19)। अनिकेतः स्थिरमतिः (गीता 12।19) इति गुणातीतलक्षणे च परमार्थसंन्यासिनः विशेषितत्वात्। वक्ष्यति च निष्ठा ज्ञानस्य या परा (गीता 18।50) इति। तस्मात् ज्ञाननिष्ठाः संन्यासिनः न इह विवक्षिताः। कर्मफलत्यागः एव सात्त्विकत्वेन गुणेन तामसत्वाद्यपेक्षया संन्यासः उच्यते? न मुख्यः सर्वकर्मसंन्यासः।।

सर्वकर्मसंन्यासासंभवे च न हि देहभृता इति हेतुवचनात् मुख्य एव इति चेत्? न हेतुवचनस्य स्तुत्यर्थत्वात्। यथा त्यागाच्छान्तिरनन्तरम् (गीता 12।12) इति कर्मफलत्यागस्तुतिरेव यथोक्तानेकपक्षानुष्ठानाशक्तिमन्तम् अर्जुनम् अज्ञं प्रति विधानात् तथा इदमपि न हि देहभृता शक्यम् (गीता 18।11) इति कर्मफलत्यागस्तुत्यर्थम् न सर्वकर्माणि मनसा संन्यस्य नैव कुर्वन्न कारयन्नास्ते इत्यस्य पक्षस्य अपवादः केनचित् दर्शयितुं शक्यः। तस्मात् कर्मणि अधिकृतान् प्रत्येव एषः संन्यासत्यागविकल्पः। ये तु परमार्थदर्शिनः सांख्याः? तेषां ज्ञाननिष्ठायामेव सर्वकर्मसंन्यासलक्षणायाम् अधिकारः? न अन्यत्र? इति न ते विकल्पार्हाः। तच्च उपपादितम् अस्माभिः वेदाविनाशिनम् (गीता 2।21) इत्यस्मिन्प्रदेशे? तृतीयादौ च।।तत्र एतेषु विकल्पभेदेषु --,

English Translation By Swami Sivananda

18.3 Some philosophers declare that actions should be abandoned as an evil; while others (declare) that acts of sacrifice, gift and austerity should not be relinished.

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

18.3 Eke, some; manisinah, learned ones, subscribing to the views of the Sankhyas and others; prahuh, say; that dosavat, beset with evil (as it is);-What is it?- karma, action, all actions, becuase they are the cause of bondage; tyajyam, should be given up even by those who are eligible for actions (rites and duties). Or, it (action) is to be given up dosavat, just as defects such as attachment etc. are renounced. Ca and, in that very context; apare, others; (say) that yajana-dana-tapah-karma, the practice of sacrifice, charity and auterity; na tyajyam, should not be given up. These alternatives are with regard to only those who are alified for action, but not with regard to the monks who are steadfast in Knowledge and have gone beyond the stages of life. This discussion is not concerned with those who are held to be outside the scope of eligibility for action in the assertion (by the Lord), 'The steadfastness in the Yoga of Knowledge by men of realization was spoken of by Me in the days of yore' (see 3.3). Objection: Well, just as those who are alified for rites and duties and who have their distinct steadfastness are being considered here in the chapter summarizing the entire scripture, though they have been dealt with earlier in '৷৷.through the Yoga of Action for the yogis' (3.3), similarly, let even the men of realization who are steadfast in Knowledge be considered here. Reply: No, because it is not logical that their renunciation should result from delusion and sorrow (cf. 7 and 8). The men of realization do not perceive in the Self the sorrows arising from physical torment; for it has been shown that desire etc. are attributes only of the field (body) (see 13.6). Therefore, they do not renounce action but of fear for physical trouble and pain. Nor do they perceive actions in the Self, on account of which they should give up obligatory duties out of delusion. In fact, they renounce with the conviction that 'action belongs to the organs' (see 3.28); 'I certainly do not do anything' (see 5.8); for, the mode of renunciation of an enlightened person was shown in, '৷৷.having given up all actions mentally' (5.13). Therefore, those others who are alified for rites and duties, who are unelightened about the Self, and for whom renunciation is possible out of delusion and from fear of physical trouble, are alone condemned as persons who, being possessed of tamas and rajas, resort to renunciation. And this is done with a veiw to eulogizing the renunciation of the results of rites and duties by the unenlightened men of action. Besides, the men of renunciation in the real sense have been particularly pointed out in, 'who has renounced ever undertaking,' 'who is silent, content with anything, homeless, steadyminded' (12.16, 19), and also (while determining) the characteristics of one who has transcended the gunas (Chapter 14). The Lord will further say, '৷৷.which is the supreme consummation of Knowledge' (50). Therefore the monks steadfast in Knowledge are not intended to be spoken of here. It is only the abandoning of the results of action which, by virtue of its being imbued with the ality of sattva, is spoken of as sannyasa in contrast to the renunciation of actions which is possessed of tamas etc.; it is not sannyasa in the primary-sense-the renunciation of all actions. Objection: According to the reason shown in the text, 'Since it is not possible for one who holds on to a body to give up actions entirely' (11), may it not be argued that the actions entirely' (11), may it not be argued that the word sannyasa is certainly used in the primary sense because it is impossible to abandon all works? Reply: No, for the next adducing the reason is meant for eulogy. Just as, 'From renunciation immediately (follows) Peace' (12.12), is a mere eulogy of renunciation of the fruits of action, it having been enjoined on Arjuna who was unenlightened and incapable of undertaking the various alternatives (paths) as stated earlier, so also is this sentence, 'Since it is not possible for one who holds on to a body to give up actions entirely' (11), meant for eulogizing the renunciation of the resorts of all actions. No one can point an exception to the proposition that 'having given up all actions mentally, (the embodied man of self-control) continues happily৷৷.without doing or causing (others) to do anything at all' (see 5.13). Therefore these alternative veiws regarding sannyasa and tyaga are concerned only with those who are alified for rites and duties. But the enlightened ones who have realized the supreme Truth are competent only for steadfastness in Knowledge, which is characterized by renunciation of all actions; not for anything else. Hence, they do not come within the purview of the alternative veiws. Thus has this been pointed out by us in connection with the text, '৷৷.he who knows this One as indestructible৷৷.' (2.21) as also in the beginning of the third chapter.