- Arjuna said -- O mighty-armed Hrsikesa, O slayer of (the demon) Kesi, I want to know severally the truth about sannyasa as also about tyaga. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

O mighty-armed Hrsikesa, kesi-nisudana, O slayer of (the demon) Kesi; icchami, I want; veditum, to know; prthak, severally, through their mutual distinctions; tattvam, the truth, the intrinsic nature, i.e. the real meaning; sannyasasya, of sannyasa, i.e. the meaning of the word sannyasa, ca, as also; tyagasya, of tyaga, i.e. the meaning of the word tyaga. Kesi was a demon who had assumed the form of a horse, and Lord Vasudeva had killed him. Hence He is addressed by that name (Kesi-nisudana) by Arjuna. The word sannyasa and tyaga, used in various places in the preceding Chapters, are not explicit in their implications.

Therefore, in order to determine them for Arjuna who had put the question,- (Ⅳ)

- The Blessed Lord said -- The learned ones know sannyasa to be the giving up of actions done with a desire for reward. The adepts call the abandonment of the results of all works as tyaga. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Some kavayah, learned ones; viduh, know; sannyasam, sannyasa, the meaning of the word sannyasa, the non-performance of what comes as a duty; to be the nyasam, giving up; karmanam, of actions; kamyanam, done with a desire for reward, e.g. Horse-sacrifice etc. Sarva-karma-phala-tyagah, abandonment of the results of all actions, means the giving up of the results accruing to oneself from all actions- the daily obligatory and the occasional (nitya and naimittika) that are performed. Vicaksanah, the adepts, the learned ones; prahuh, call, speak of that; as tyagam, tyaga, as the meaning of the word tyaga. Even if 'the giving up of actions for desired results' or 'the abandonment of results' be the intended meaning, in either case the one meaning of the words sannyasa and tyaga amounts only to tyaga (giving up); they do not imply distinct categories as do the words 'pot' and 'cloth'.

Objection: Well, is it not that they say the daily obligatory (nitya) and the occasional (naimittika) rites and duties have no results at all? How is the giving up of their results spoken of-like the abandoning of a son of a barren woman?!

Reply: This defect does not desire. It is the intention of the Lord that the nitya-karmas (daily obligatory duties) also have results; for the Lord will say, 'The threefold results of actions-the undesirable, the desirable and the mixed-accrue after death to those who do not resort to tyaga', and also, 'but never to those who resort to sannyasa (monks)' (12).

Indeed, by showing that, it is only in the case of sannyasins (monks) alone that there is no connection with the results of actions, the Lord asserts in, '...accrue after death to those who do not resort to tyaga (renunciation)' (abid.), that the result of daily obligatory (nitya) duties accrue to those who are not sannyasins (monks). (Ⅳ)

- Some learned persons say that action, beset with evil (as it is), should be given up, and others (say) that the practice of sacrifice, charity and austerity should not be given up. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

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, because 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 austerity; na tyajyam, should not be given up. These alternatives are with regard to only those who are qualified 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 qualified 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 '...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, '...having given up all actions mentally' (5.13).

Therefore, those others who are qualified for rites and duties, who are unenlightened 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 view 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, steady minded' (12.16, 19), and also (while determining) the characteristics of one who has transcended the gunas ( Chapter 14). The Lord will further say, '...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 quality 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 happily...without doing or causing (others) to do anything at all' (see 5.13).

Therefore these alternative views regarding sannyasa and tyaga are concerned only with those who are qualified 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 views. Thus has this been pointed out by us in connection with the text, '...he who knows this One as indestructible...' (2.21) as also in the beginning of the third Chapter. (Ⅳ)

- O the most excellent among the descendants of Bharata, hear from Me the firm conclusion regarding that tyaga. For, O greatest among men, tyaga has been clearly declared to be of three kinds. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Bharata-sattama, O the most excellent among the descendants of Bharata; srnu, hear, understand; me, from Me, from My statement; niscayam, the firm conclusion; tatra tyage, regarding that tyaga, regarding these alternative views on tyaga and sannyasa as they have been shown. Hi, for; purusavyaghra, O greatest among men; tyagah, tyaga; samprakirtitah, has been clearly declared, has been distinctly spoken of in the scriptures; to be trividhah, of three kinds, threefold, under the classes of tamasa (those based on tamas [Tamas: darkness, mental darkness, ignorance; one of the three qualities of everything in Nature. Also see 14.8, and note under 2.45.-Tr.], etc. The Lord has used the word tyaga with the idea that the (primary) meanings of tyaga and sannyasa are verily the same. Since it is difficult to comprehend this idea, that the primary meanings of the words tyaga and sannyasa can be threefold under the classification based on tamas etc. in the case of one who is unenlightened and who is qualified for rites and duties-but not in the case of one who has realized the supreme Goal-,

Therefore no one else is capable of speaking the truth in this connection.

Hence, listen to the firm conclusion of the Lord with regard to the supreme Truth as revealed by the scriptures. Which, again, is this firm conclusion? In reply the Lord says: (Ⅳ)

- The practice of sacrifice, charity and austerity is not to be abandoned; it is surely to be undertaken. Sacrifice, charity and austerity are verily the purifiers of the wise. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Yajna-dana-tapah-karma, the practice of sacrifice, charity and austerity-this threefold practice; na tyajyam, is not to be abandoned; tat, it; is eva, surely; karyam, to be undertaken. Why? Yajnah, sacrifice; danam, charity; and tapah, austerity; are eva, verily; pavanani, the purifiers, the causes of sanctification; manisinam, of the wise, i.e. of those who do not seek results for themselves. (Ⅳ)

- But even these actions have to be undertaken by renouncing attachment and (hankering for) results. This is My firm and best conclusion, O Parhta. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Tu, but; api, even; etani, these; karmani, actions, viz sacrifice, charity and austerity, which have been spoken of as purifiers; kartavyani, have to be undertaken; tyaktva, by renouncing; sangam, attachment to them; and by giving up (hankering for) their phalani, results. Iti, this; is me, My; niscitam, firm; and uttamam, best; matam, conclusion. Having promised, 'hear from Me the firm conclusion regarding that (tyaga)' (4) and also adduced the reason that they are purifiers, the utterance, 'Even these actions have to be performed. This is the firm and best conclusion', is only by way of concluding the promised subject- matter; this sentence does not introduce a fresh topic. For it stands to reason that the phrase 'even these' refers to some immediate topic under discussion. The implication of the word api (even) is: 'Even these acts, which are causes of bondage to one who has attachment and who hankers after their results, have to be undertaken by a seeker of Liberation.' But the phrase 'even these' is not used in relation to other acts. Others explain (thus): Since the nityakarmas have no results, therefore (in their case) it is illogical to say, 'by giving up attachment and (hankering for their) results'. The meaning of the phrase etani api (even these) is that, 'even these rites and duties, which are undertaken for desired results and are different from the nityakarmas, have to be undertaken. What to speak of the nityakarmas like sacrifice, charity and austerity!' (Reply:) This is wrong since it has been established by the text, 'sacrifice, charity and austerity are verily the purifiers,' that even the nityakarmas have results. For a seeker of Liberation who wants to give up even the nityakarmas from fear of their being causes of bondage, how can there be any association with actions done for desired results?

Moreover, the phrase etani api cannot apply to actions done for desired results (kamyakarmas), since they have been denigrated in, '...

Indeed, actions is quite inferior' (2.49), and in, '...by actions other than that action meant for God' (3.9), and since, on the strength of the texts [Which support the two earlier arguments.], 'the Vedas have the three qualities as their object' (2.45), 'Those who are versed in the Vedas, who are drinkers of Soma,...(pray for the heavenly goal by worshipping) Me' (9.20), and 'they enter into the human world on the exhaustion of their merit' (9.21), it has been definitely stated that actions done for desired results are causes of bondage; and also because they are far removed from the context. (Ⅳ)

- The abandoning of daily obligatory acts (nityakamas) is not justifiable. Giving up that through delusion is declared to be based on tamas. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Therefore, sannyasah, the abandoning; niyatasya tu karmanah, of the daily obligatory acts, by the seeker of Liberation who is as yet unenlightened and is fit for rites and duites; na apapadyate, is not justifiable, because what is desired is the purification of unenlightened persons. Parityagah, giving up; tasya, of that, of the daily obligatory duty; mohat, through delusion, through ignorance; parikirtitah, is declared; to be tamasah, based on tamas. Niyata is that duty which must be performed. That an act is niyata (obligatory) and it is relinquished is contradictory.

Therefore the giving up of that through delusion is declared to be based on tamas, for delusion is tamas. Besides, 18.8 Whatever action one may relinquish merely as being painful, from fear of physical suffering, he, having resorted to renunciation based on rajas, will surely not acquire the fruits of renunciation. (Ⅳ)

- Whatever action one may relinquish merely as being painful, from fear of physical suffering, he, having resorted to renunciation based on rajas, will surely not acquire the fruits of renunciation. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Yat, whatever; karma, action; tyajet, one may relinquish, eva, merely; iti, as being; kuhkham, painful; [As being impossible to accomplish.] kaya- klesa-bhayat, from fear of physical suffering, out of fear of bodily pain; sah, he; krtva, having resorted; tyagam, to renunciation; rajasam, based on rajas, arising from rajas; will eva, surely; na labhet (shuld rather be labhate), not acquire; tyaga-phalam, fruits of renunciation, the result called Liberation, which follows from renunciation of all actions as a consequence of Illumination. Which, again, is the renunciation based on sattva? (Ⅳ)

- Whatever obligatory duty is performed just because it is a bounden duty, O Arjuna, by giving up attachment and the result as well,-that renunciation is considered to be based on sattva. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Yat, whatever; niyatam karma, daily obligatory duty; kriyate, is performed, accomplished; iti eva, just because; it is karyam, a bounden duty; O Arjuna, tyaktva, by giving up; sangam, attachment; and phalam, the result; ca eva, as well; sah, that; tyagah, renunciation, giving up of attachment and (hankering for) the results of daily obligatory duties; matah, is considered; to be sattvikah, based on sattva, arising from sattva. We said that the Lord's utterance is proof of the fruitfulness of daily obligatory duties.

Or, even if the niyakarmas be understood (from the Lord's worlds) to be fruitless, still the ignorant man does certainly imagine that the nityakarmas (daily obligatory duites) when performed produce for oneself a result either in the form of purification of the mind or avoidance of evil. As to this, the Lord aborts even that imagination by saying, 'by giving up the result'. Hence it has been well said, 'by giving up attachment and the result'.

Objection: Well, is not the threefold relinquishment of actions, also called sannyasa, under discussion? As regards this, the renunciation based on tamas and rajas have been stated. Why is the relinquishment of attachment and (desire for their) results spoken of here as the third? This is like somebody saying, 'Three Brahmanas have come. Of them two are versed in the six auxiliaries [The six auxiliaries are: Siksa (Phonetics), Kalpa (Code of Rituals and Sacrifices), Vyakarana (Grammar), Nirukta (Etymology), Chandas (Meter, Prosody), and Jyotisa (Astronomy).-Tr.] of the Vedas; the third is a Ksatirya!'

Reply: This is not wrong, for this is meant as a eulogy on the basis of the common factor of renunciation. Between renunciation of actions and renunciation. of hankering for results, there is, indeed, the similarity of the fact of renunciation. While on this subject, by condemning 'renunciation of actions' on account of its being based on rajas and tamas, the 'renunciation of desire for results of actions' is being praised on account of its being based on sattva, by saying, 'that renunciation is considered to be based on sattva.' The internal organ of a person who is qualified for rites and duties, who performs the nityakarmas by giving up attachment and hankering for results, becomes pure on account of its being untainted by attachment to results etc. and refined by the nitya-karmas. When it is pure and tranquil, it becomes capable of contemplating on the Self. Since, for that very person whose internal organ has become purified by performing the nityakarmas and who has become ready for the knowledge of the Self, the process by which he can become steadfast in it has to be stated, therefore the Lord says: (Ⅳ)

- The man of renunciation who has become imbued with sattva, who is wise and freed from doubts, does not hate unbefitting action, nor does he become attached to befitting activity. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Na devesti, he does not hate; akusalam, unbefitting; karma, action, rites and duties meant for desired results-with the idea, 'What is the usefulness of this which is a cause of transmigration through fresh embodiment?' Na anusajjate, he does not become attached to; kusale, befitting activity, daily obligatory duties, by thinking that this is the cause of Liberation by virtue of its being the cause of purification of the mind, rise of Knowledge and steadfastness in it. That is to say, he does not entertain any liking even for it, because he finds no purpose in it. Who, again, is he? Tyagi, the man of renunciation, who has become so by having given up attachment and rewards of action in the manner stated above. He is a tyagi who performs nityakarmas by relinquishing attachment to those acts and (their) results. A

gain, it is being stated as to when that person does not hate an unbefitting act and does not become attached to a befitting activity: When he has become sattva-samavistah, imbued with sattva, i.e., when he is filled with, possessed of, sattva, which is the means to the knowledge that discriminates between the Self and the not-Self; and hence medhavi, wise-endowed with intelligence (medha), intuitive experience, characterized as knowledge of the Self; one possessed of that is medhavai (wise)-; and owing to the very fact of being wise, chinnasamsayah, freed from doubts-one whose doubts created by ignorance have been sundered, one who is freed from doubts by his firm conviction that nothing but abiding in the nature of the Self is the supreme means to the highest Good.

The person competent (for rites and duties) who, having gradually become purified in mind through the practice of Karma-yoga in the way described above, has realized as his own Self the actionless Self, which is devoid of modifications like birth etc., he, '...having given up all actions mentally remaining at without doing or causing (others) to do anything at all' (cf. 5.13), attains steadfastness in Knowledge, which is characterized as 'actionless- ness'. In this way, the purpose of the aforesaid Karma-yoga has been stated through the present verse.

On the other hand, since, for the unenlightened person-who, while being qualified (for rites and duties), holds on to the body owing to the erroneous conception that the body is the Self, and who has the firm conviction, 'I am the agent,' because of the persistence of his idea that the Self is the agent-it is not possible to renounce actions totally, therefore he has competence only for performing enjoined duties by giving up fruits of actions. But he is not to renounce them (actions). In order to point out this idea the Lord says: (Ⅳ)

- Since it is not possible for one who holds on to a body to give up actions entirely, therefore he, on the other hand, who renounces results on actions is called a man of renunciation. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Deha-bhrta, for one who holds on to a body- one who maintains (bibharti) a body (deha) is called a deha-bhrt. One who has self- identification with the body is called a deha-bhrt, but not a so a man of discrimination; for he has been excluded from the eligibility for agentship by such texts as, 'He who knows this One is indestructible...' etc.

Hence, for that unenlightened person who holds on to the body, he, since; it is na, not; sakyam, possible; tyaktum, to give up, renounce; karmani, actions; asesatah, entirely, totally;

Therefore the ignorant person who is competent (for rites and duties), yah, who; tu, on the other hand; karma-phala-tyagi, renounces results of actions, relinquishes only the hankering for the results of actions while performing the nityakarmas; sah, he; is abhidhiyate, called; tyagi iti, a man of renunciation-even though he continues to be a man of rites and duties. This is said by way of eulogy.

Therefore total renunciation of actions is possible only for one who has realized the supreme Truth, who does not hold on to the body, and who is devoid of the idea that the body is the Self. Again, what is that purpose which is accomplished through renunciation of all actions? This is being stated: (Ⅳ)

- The threefold results of actions-the undesirable, the desirable, and the mixed-accrues after death to those who do not resort to renunciation, but never to those who resort to monasticism. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

These trividham, threefold-of three kinds; phalam, results; karmanah, of actions characterized as the righteous and the unrighteous; anistam, the undesirable, consisting in (birth in) hell, (among) animals, etc.; istam, the desirable, consisting in (birth as) gods and others; and misram, the mixed, having a mixture of the desirable and the undesirable, consisting in (birth as) human beings;- these results that are of these kinds, bhavati, accrues; pretya, after death, after the fall of the body; atyaginam, to those who do not resort to renunciation, to the unillumined, the men with rites and duties, who are not men of renunciation in the truest sense. The derivative sense of the word phala (pha-la) is this: On account of being accomplished through the operation of diverse external accessories, and a result of ignorance, comparable to the charm cast by jugglery, a source of great delusion and appearing as though close to the indwelling Self, it is phalgu (unsubstantial), and as a consequence it undergoes layam (disappearance). (The result that is of this kind accrues to those who do not resort to renunciation). Tu, but; na kvacit, never; sannyasinam, to those who resort to monasticism for the sake of the highest Reality, to the class of monks called paramahamsas who remain steadfast in Knowledge alone. For, it cannot be that those who are devoted wholly to steadfastness in complete enlightenment do not dig out the seed of transmigration. This is the meaning.

Therefore it is only for those who have realized the supreme Truth that it is possible to become a monk who renounces actions totally, because action, accessories and results are super impositions on the Self through ignorance. But the renunciation of all actions is not possible for an unenlightened person who perceives the locus (the body etc.), action, agentship and accessories as the Self. This the Lord shows in the following verses: (Ⅳ)

- O mighty-armed one, learned from Me these [Another reading is etani.-Tr.] five factors for the accomplishment of all actions, which have been spoken of in the Vedanta in which actions terminate. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

O mighty-armed one, nibodha, learn; me, from Me; imani, these; panca, five; karanani, factors, accessories, which are going to be stated- for drawing the attention of his (Arjuna's) mind and for showing the difference among these categories [Categories: locus (body) etc], the Lord praises those accessories in the succeeding verses as fit for being known-; siddhaye, for the accomplishment; sarva-karmanam, of all actions; proktani, which have been spoken of; sankhye, in Vedanta-sankhya is that scripture where the subject-matters [In the sentence, 'Thou art That', the word Thou means the individual Self, and That means Brahman. The comprehension of their unity, and also 'hearing, reflection and meditation' are referred to as the subject-matters.] to be known are fully (samyak) stated (khyayante)-; krtante, in which actions terminate. Krtante qualifies that very word (Vedanta). Krtam mean action. That in which occurs the culmination (anta) of that krtam is krtantam, i.e. the termination of actions. In the texts, '...as much utility as a man has in a well' (2.46), and 'O son of Prtha, all actions in their totality culminate in Knowledge' (4.33), the Lord shows the cessation of all actions when the knowledge of the Self dawns. Hence (it is said): '...which have been spoken of in that Vedanta where actions culminate and which is meant for the knowledge of the Self.' Which are they? This is being answered: (Ⅳ)

- The locus as also the agent, the different kinds of organs, the many and distinct activities, and, the divine is here the fifth. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Adhisthanam, the locus, the body, which is the seat, the basis, of the manifestation of desire, hatred, happiness, sorrow, knowledge, etc.; tatha, as also karta, the agent, the enjoyer [The individual Self which has intelligence etc. as its limiting adjuncts, due to which it appears to possess their characteristics and become identified with them.] who has assumed the characteristics of the limiting adjuncts; prthak vidham, the different kinds of; karanam, organs, the ears etc. which, twelve [The five organs of knowledge (eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin), the five organs of actions (hands, feet, speech, organ of excretion and that of generation), the mind and the intellect.] in number, are of different kinds for the experience of sound etc.; the vividhah, many; and prthak, distinct; cesta, activities connected with air-exhalation, inhalation, etc.; ca eva, and; daivam, the divine, i.e. the Sun and the others who are the presiding deities of the eye etc.; is atra, here, in relation to these four; pancamam, the fifth-completing the five. (Ⅳ)

- Whatever action a man performs with the body, speech and mind, be it just or its reverse, of it these five are the causes. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Yat, whatever; karma, action; narah, a man; prarabhate, performs; with these three-sarira-van- manobhih, with the body, speech and mind; be it nyayyam, just, rigtheous, conforming to the scriptures; va, or; viparitam, its reverse, not conforming to the scriptures, unrighteous; and even such activities like closing the eyes etc. whch are consequent on the fact of living (i.e. instinctive acts)-they also are certainly the result of righteous and unrighteous acts done in earlier lives, and hence they are understood by the very, use of the words 'just and its reverse'-; tasya, of it, of all activities without exception; ete, these; panca, five, as mentioned; are the hetavah, causes.

Objection: Well, are not the locus etc. the cause of all actions? Why is it said, '...performs with the body, speech and mind'?

Reply: This fault does not arise. All actions described as 'enjoined' or 'prohibited' are mainly based on the three, body etc. Seeing, hearing, etc., which are characteristics of life and are subsidiaries to these (body etc.) [Seeing etc. are accomplished by the eye etc., which are part and parcel of the body etc.] , are divided into three groups and spoken of in, 'performs with the body,' etc. Even at the time of reaping the fruits (of actions), they are experienced mainly through these (three).

Hence, there is no contradiction with the assertion that the five are the causes. (Ⅳ)

- This being the case, anyone, who, owing to the imperfection of his intellect, perceives the absolute Self as the agent, that man does not perceive (properly), and has a perverted intellect. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Tatra is used for connecting with the topic under discussion. Tatra evam sati, this being the case, when actions are thus accomplished by the five causes mentioned above;-this portion has to be connected with 'perverted intellect' by way of causality [Actions are done by the body etc., but since a person thinks that the Self is the agent, therefore he is said to have a perverted intellect.]- yah, tu, anyone, an unenlightened person, who; pasyati, perceives; kevalam, the absolute, pure; atmanam, Self; as the kartaram, agent-thinking, 'I myself am the agent of the actions being done by them', as a consequence of imagining the Self as identified with them; why?-akrta-buddhitvat, owing to the imperfection of his intellect, owing to his intellect not having been refined by the instructions of Vedanta and the teachers, and by reasoning-. Even the person who, believing in the Self as distinct from the body etc., looks upon the distinct [Ast. omits anyam (distinct).-Tr.], absolute Self as the agent, he, too, is surely of imperfect intellect.

Hence, owing to his having an imperfect intellect, sah, that man; na, does not; pasyati, perceive (properly) either the truth about the Self or about actions. This is the meaning.

Therefore he is a durmatih, man of perverted intellect, in the sense that his intellect is contemptible, perverse, corrupted, and the cause of repeatedly undergoing births and deaths. He does not perceive even while seeing-like the man suffering from Timira seeing many moons, or like one thinking the moon to be moving when (actually) the clouds are moving, or like the one seated on some conveyance (e.g. palanquin), thinking oneself to be moving when others (the bearers) are moving. Who, again, is the man of right intellect who perceives correctly? This is being answered: (Ⅳ)

- He who has not the feeling of egoism, whose intellect is not tainted, he does not kill, nor does he become bound-even by killing these creatures! (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Yasya, he who, the person whose intellect is refined by the instructions of the scriptures and the teachers, and reason; who has na, not; ahankrtah bhavah, the feeling of egoism, in whom does not occur the notion in the form, 'I am the agent'; i.e., he who sees thus: 'These five, viz locus etc. (14), imagined in the Self through ignorance, are verily the agents of all actions; not I. But I am the absolute, unchanging witness of their functions, 'Without vita force, without mind, pure, superior to the (other) superior immutable (Maya)" (Mu. 2.1.1)'; yasya, whose; buddhih, intellect, the internal organ, which is the limiting adunct of the Self; is na, not; lipyate, tainted, does not become regretful thinking, 'I have done this; as a result, I shall enter into hell'; whose intellect does not become thus tainted, he has a good intellect and he perceives (rightly). Api, even; hatva, by killing; iman, these; lokan, creatures, i.e. all living beings; sah he; does not hanti, kill-he does not perform the act of killing; nor does he nibadhyate, become bound, nor even does he become connected with its result, the fruit of an unrighteous action.

Objection: Even if this be a eulogy, is it not contradictory to say, 'even by killing he does not kill'?

Reply: This defect does not arise; for this becomes logical from the ordinary and the enlightened points of view. By adopting the empirical point of view (which consists in thinking), 'I am the slayer', by identifying the body with the Self, the Lord says, 'even by killing'; and, by taking His stand on the supreme Truth as explained above (the Lord says), 'he does not kill, nor does he become bound'. Thus both these surely become reasonable. Objection; Is it not that the Self certainly does act in combination with the locus etc., which conclusion follows from the use of the word kevala (absolute) in the text, 'the absolute Self as the agent' (16)?

Reply: There is not such fault, because, the Self being changeless by nature, there is no possibility of Its becoming united with the locus etc. For it is only a changeful entity that can possibly be united with another, or come to have agentship through combination. But, for the changeless Self there can be no combination with anything whatsoever.

Hence, agentship through combination is not logical.

Therefore, the absoluteness of the Self being natural, the word kevalam is merely a reiteration of an established fact. And the changelessness of the Self is well known from the Upanishads , the Smrtis and logic. As to that, in the Gita itself this has been established more than once in such texts as, 'It is said that...This is unchangeable' (2.25), 'Actions are being done by the gunas themselves' (see 3.27), 'this ...supreme Self does not act...although existing in the body' (13.31), and in the Upanishads also in such texts as, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (Br. 4.3.7). And from the standpoint of reason also, the royal path is to hold that the true nature of the Self is that It is partless, independent of others and changeless. Even if mutability (of the Self) be accepted, It should have a change that is Its own. The functions of the locus etc. cannot be attributed to the agency of the Self.

Indeed, an action done by someone else cannot be imputed to another by whom it has not been done! As for what is imputed (on somebody) through ignorance, that is not his. As the quality of silver is not of nacre, or as surface or dirt attributed through ignorance to the sky by foolish people is not of the sky, similarly, the changes in the locus etc. also are verily their own, and not of the Self. Hence it has been well said that the enlightened person 'does not kill, nor is he bound', because of the absence of his being tainted by the idea that actions are done by himself. [Some translate this portion thus: '...because of the absence of the thought 'I am doing', and also due to the taintlessness of the mind'; or, '...in the absence of egotism and of all taint in the mind'.-Tr.] After having declared, 'This One does not kill, nor is It killed' (2.19); having stated the immutability of the Self through such texts as, 'Never is this One born' (2.20) , etc., which adduce the reason for this; having briefly stated at the commencement of the Scripture-in, 'he who knows this One as indestructible' (2.21)-that the enlightened man has no eligibility for rites and duties; and having deliberated in various places on that (cessation) which has been mooted in the middle (of the Scripture), the Lord, by way of summarizing the purport of the Scripture, concludes here by saying that the enlightened person 'does not kill, nor does he become bound.' If this be so, then it becomes established that the three kinds of results of actions, viz the undesirable etc., do not accrue to the monks, since it is reasonable that, because of the illogicality of their entertaining the idea of being embodied, all actions resulting from ignorance become abandoned (by them). And hence, as a consequence of a reversal of this, it becomes inevitable that the results do accrue to others.

Thus, this is how the purport of the scripture Gita has been summed up. In order that this which is the essence of the teachings of all the Vedas should be. understood after deliberation by the learned ones possessing a sharp intellect, it has been explained by us in accordance with the scriptures and reasoning, in various places by dealing with it topically. Thereafter, now is being stated what prompts actions: (Ⅳ)

- Knowledge, the object the knowledge and the knower-this is the threefold inducement to action. The comprehension of actions comes under three heads-the instruments, the object and the subject. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Jnanam, knowledge (-being derived in the sense of 'that through which something is known', jnana means knowledge concerning all things in general-): so also jneyam, the object of knowledge (-that also is a reference to all objects in general-); similarly, parijnata, the knower, the experiencer, a product of ignorance, who partakes of the nature of the limiting adjuncts;-

Thus, this tripartite group formed by these is the trividha, threefold; karma- codana, inducement ot action, inducer of all actions in general. For, it is when the three, viz knowledge etc., combine that commencement of all actions meant either for acceptance or rejection [Acceptance, rejection or indifference.] are possible. After that, what are initiated by the five, viz locus etc., and are grouped in three ways according to the differences of their being based on speech, mind and body become comprehended under the three, viz instrument etc. This is what is being stated: Karma-sangrahah, the comprehension [It is well know that actions are based on the three- instrument etc.] of actions; iti, comes under; trividhah, three heads, three classes; viz karanam, the instrument (-derived in the sense of that through which anything is done-), i.e. the external (organs) (ear etc.) and the internal (organs) (intellect etc.); karma, the object (-derivatively meaning that which is most cherished by the subject and is achieved through an act-); and karta, the subject (agent), who employs the instrument etc., who partakes of the nature of the limiting adjuncts. Sangrahah is derived thus: that in which something is comprehended. The comprehension of action (karma) is karma-sangrahah.

Indeed, action becomes included in these three. Hence is this 'threefold comprehension of action'. Now then, since action, instrument and result are all constituted by the gunas, it becomes necessary to state the three fold variety in them based on the differences among the gunas, viz sattva, rajas and tamas. Hence it is begun: (Ⅳ)

- Knowledge, action and agent are stated in the teaching about the gunas to be only of three kinds according to the differences of the gunas. Hear about them also as they are. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Jnanam, knowledge; karma, action-not the objective case in the technical sense, which is defined as 'that which is most cheirshed by the subject'; and karta, agent, the accomplisher of actions; procyate, are stated; guna-sankhyane, in the teaching about the gunas, in the philosophy of Kapila; to be eva, only (-only is used for emphasis, by way of showing that they have no classification other than that based on the gunas-); tridha, of three kinds; guna-bhedatah, according to the differences of the gunas, i.e. according to the differences of sattva etc. Even that philosophy teaching about the gunas is certainly valid so far as it concerns the experiencer of the gunas, though it is contradictory so far as the non-duality of the supreme Reality, Brahman, is concerned. Those followers of Kapila are acknowledge authorities in the ascertainment of the functions of the gunas and their derivatives.

Hence, that scripture, too, is being referred to by way of eulogy of the subject- matter going to be spoken of.

Therefore there is no contradiction. Srnu, hear; tani, about them; api, also; yathavat, as they are, as established by reason and as propounded in the scriptures. Hear about knowledge etc. and all their diversities created by the differences of the gunas. The idea is , 'Concentrate your mind on the subject going to be taught.' And now the threefold classification of knowledge is being stated: (Ⅳ)

- Know that knowledge to be originating from sattva through which one sees a single, undecaying, undivided Entity in all the diversified things. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Viddhi, know; tat, that; jnanam, knowledge, realization of the Self as non-dual, complete realization; to be sattvikam, originating from sattva; yena, through which knowledge; iksate, one sees; ekam, a single; avyayam, undecaying-that which does not undergo mutation either in itself or by the mutation of its qualities-' i.e. eternal and immutable; bhavam, Entity-the word bhava is used to imply an entity-, i.e. the single Reality which is the Self; sarvabhutesu, in all things, in all things begining from the Unmanifest to the unmoving things; and through which knowledge one sees that Entity to be avibhaktam, undivided; in every body, vibhaktesu, in all the diversified things, in the different bodies. The idea is: that Reality which is the Self remains, like Space, undivided. Being based on rajas and tamas, those that are the dualistic philosophies are incomplete, and hence are not by themselves adequate for the eradication of worldly existence. (Ⅳ)

- But know that knowledge to be originating from rajas which, amidst all things, apprehends the different entities of various kinds as distinct [As possessing distinct selves.]. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Tu, but; viddhi, know; tat, that; jnanam, knowledge; to be rajasam, originating from rajas; yat, which; sarvesu bhutesu, amidst all things; vetti, apprehends-since knowledge cannot be an agent of hends-since knowledge cannot be an agent of action, therefore the meaning implied is, 'that, knowledge...through which one apprehends...'-; nana-bhavan, the different entities; prthagvidhan, of various kinds, i.e., those possessing diverse characteristics and different from oneself; prthakrvena, as distinct, as separate in each body. (Ⅳ)

- But that (knowledge) is said to be born of tamas which is confined to one form as though it were all, which is irrational, not concern with truth and triivial. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

But tat, that knowledge; is udahrtam, said to be; tamasam, born of tamas; yat, which is; saktam, confined; ekasmin, to one; karye, from, to one body or to an external image etc., krtsnavat, as though it were all, as though it comprehended everything, thinking, 'The Self, or God, is only this much; there is nothing beyond it,'-as the naked Jainas hold that the soul conforms to and has the size of the body, or (as others hold) that God is merely a stone or wood-, remaining confined thus to one form; ahaitukam, which is irrational, bereft of logic; a- tattvarthavat, not concerned with truth-tattvartha, truth, means some-thing just as it is; that (knowledge) which has this (truth) as its object of comprehension is tattvarthavat; that without this is ; a-tattvarthavat-; and which, on account of the very fact of its being irrational, is alpam, trivial, because it is concerned with trifles or is productive of little result. This kind of knowledge is indeed found in non-discriminating creatures in whom tamas predominates. Now is being stated the threehold division of action: (Ⅳ)

- The daily obligatory action which is performed without attachment and without likes or dislikes by one who does not hanker for rewards, that is said to be born of sattva. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Niyatam, the daily obligatory; karma, action; yat, which; is krtam, performed; sanga-rahitam, without attachment; araga-dvesatah, without likes or dislikes; aphala-prepsuna, by one who does not hanker for rewards, by an agent who is the opposite of one who is desirous of the fruits of action; tat, that (action); ucyate, is said to be; sattvikam, born of sattva. (Ⅳ)

- But that action is said to be born of rajas which is done by one desirous of results or by one who is egotistic, and which is highly strenuous. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

But tat, that; karma, action; udahrtam, is said to be; rajasam, born of rajas; yat, which; is kriyate, done; kamepsuna by one desirous of results; va, or; saahankarena, by one who is egotistic; and bahulaayasam, which is highly strenuous, accomplished by the agent with great effort. 'Egotistic' is not used in contrast to knowledge of Truth. What then? It is used in contrast to the absence of egotism in an ordinary person versed in the Vedic path. For in the case of the knower of the Self, who is not egotistic in the real sense, there is no question of his being desirous of results or of being an agent of actions requiring great effort. Even of actions born of sattva, the agent is one who has not realized the Self and is possessed of egoism; what to speak of actions born of rajas and tamas! In common parlance, a person versed in the Vedic path, even though not possessing knowledge of the Self, is spoken of as being free from egotism thus-'This Brahmana is free from egotism'.

Therefore, 'sahan-karena va' is said in contrast to him only. Punah (again) is used to complete the meter. (Ⅳ)

- That action is said to be born of tamas which is undertaken out of delusion, (and) without consideration of its consequence, loss, harm and ability. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Tat, that; karma, action; yat, which; is arabhyate, undertaken; mohat, out of delusion, non-discrimination; anapeksya, without consideration of; its anubandham, consequence, the result which accrues later; ksayam, loss-that loss which is incurred in the form of loss of energy or loss of wealth in the course of any action; himsam, harm, suffering to creatures; and paurusam, ability, prowess-one's own ability fest as, 'I shall be able to complete this task';-without consideration of these, from 'consequence' to 'ability', ucyate, is said to be; tamasam, born of tamas. (Ⅳ)

- [Ast. introduces this verse with 'Idanim kartrbhedah ucyate, Now is being stated the distinctions among the agents.'-Tr.] The agent who is free from attachment [Attachment to results or the idea of agentship.], not egotistic, endowed with fortitude and diligence, and unperturbed by success and failure is said to be possessed of sattva. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Karta, the agent; who is mukta-sangah, free from attachment-one by whom attachment has been given up; anahamvadi, not egotistic, not given to asserting his ego; dhrti-utsaha-samanvitah, endowed with fortitude and diligence; and nirvikarah, unperturbed; siddhi-asiddhyoh, by success and failure, in the fruition and non-fruition of any action under-taken-led only by the authority of the scriptures, not by attachment to results etc. [Etc. stands for attachment to work.];-the agent who is such, he is ucyate, said to be; sattvikah, possessed of sattva. (Ⅳ)

- The agent who has attachment, who is desirous of the results of actions, covetous, cruel by nature, unclean and subject to joy and sorrow is declared to be possessed of rajas. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Karta, the agent; ragi, who has attachment; karma-phala-prepsuh, who is desirous of the results of actions; lubdhah, covetous, greedy for other's property, and does not part with his own (when) at holy places; himsatmakah, cruel by nature, having a nature that causes pain to others; asucih, unclean, devoid of internal and external cleanliness; and harsa-soka-anvitah, subject to joy and sorrow, affected by these two, joy and sorrow- joy at the acquisition of desired objects, sorrow at getting undesired objects and losing coveted objects; and elation and dejection may occur to that very person from his actions being aided or hindered; one who is subject to those-; parikirtitah, is declared to be; rajasah, possessed of rajas. (Ⅳ)

- The agent who is unsteady, naive, unbending, deceitful, wicked, [A variant reading is naikrtikah.-Tr.] lazy, morose and procrastinating is said to be possessed of tamas. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

The agent who is ayuktah, unsteady; prakrtah, naive, of very unrefined intelligence, like a child; stabdhah, unbending like a staff-he does not bend down to anyone; sathah, deceitful, cunning, hiding his own powers; naiskrtikah, wicked, given to destroying the livelihood of others; alasah, lazy, not inclined even to his own duties; visadi, morose, ever in a mood of dejection; and dirghasutri, procrastinating, postponing duties for long, [Ast. adds here, 'sarvada mandasvabhavah, always slow by nature'.-Tr.] not accomplishing even in a month what is to be done today or tomorrow;-one who is such, he ucyate, is said to be; tamasah, possessed of tamas. (Ⅳ)

- O Dhananjaya, listen to the classification of the intellect as also of fortitude, which is threefold according to the gunas, while it is being stated elaborately and severally. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

O Dhananjaya, srnu, listen; bhedam, to the classification; buddheh, of the intellect; ca eva, as also; the classification dhrteh, of fortitude; trividham, which is threefold; gunatah, according to the gunas, sattva etc. -this much is an apporistic statement-; procyamanam, while it is being stated; asesena, elaborately, just as it is, without omitting anything; and prthaktvena, severally. Arjuna is called Dhananjaya because, in the course of his expedition to conquer all the quarters. he won immense human and divine wealth (dhana). (Ⅳ)

- O Partha, that intellect is born of sattva which understands action and withdrawal, duty and what is not duty, the sources of fear and fearlessness, and bondage and freedom. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

O Partha, sa, that; buddhih, intellect; is sattviki, born of sattva; ya, which; vetti, understands; pravrttim, action, the path of rites and duties, which is the cause of bondage; and nivrttim, withdrawal, the path of renunciation, which is the cause of Liberation-since action and withdrawal are mentioned in the same sentence along with bondage and freedom, therefore they mean 'the path of rites and duties and of renunciation'-; karya-akarye, duty and what is not duty, i.e. what is enjoined or prohibited, [Ast. adds laukike vaidike va (ordinary or Vedic injunctions and prohibitions) after vihita-pratisiddhe; and it adds sastrabuddheh before kartavya-akartavye- what ougth to be done or ought not to be done by one who relies on the scriptures.-Tr.] what ought to be done or ought not to be done, action and inaction.

With regard to what? With regard to action leading to seen or unseen, results, undertaken according to place, time, etc. Bhaya- adhaye, the sources of fear and fearlessness, i.e. the causes of fear and fearlessness, with regard to seen or unseen objects; bandham, bondage, along with its cause; and moksam, freedom, along with its cause. In this context, knowing is a function of the intellect; but the intellect is the possesser of the function. Fortitude also is only a particular function of the intellect. (Ⅳ)

- O Partha, that intellect is born of rajas with which one wrongly understands virtue and vice as also what ought to be done and ought not to be done. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

O Partha, sa, that; buddhih, intellect; is rajasi, born of rajas; yaya, with which; prajanati, one understands; ayathavat, wrongly, not truly, not by discerning it from all points of view; dharmam, virtue, as prescribed by the scritpures; and adharmam, vice, what is prohibited by them; [By dharma and adharma are implied the seen and the unseen results of actions as revealed by the scriptures; karya and akarya respectively refer to the actual doing of what ought to be done and the not doing of what ought not to be done.] ca eva, as also; karyam, what ought to be done; and akaryam, what ought not to be done-those very 'duty' and 'what is not duty' as stated earlier. (Ⅳ)

- O Partha, the firmness that is unfailing through concentration, with which one restrains the functions of the mind, vital forces and the organs, that firmness is born of sattva. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

O Partha, dhrtya, the firmness; (-is connected with the remote word) avyabhicarinya, that is unfailing; yogena, through concentration, i.e. (the firmness that is) ever associated with samadhi (absorption in Brahman); yaya, with which; dharayate, one restrains;-what?-manah-prana- indriya-kriyah, the functions of the mind, vital forces and organs-restrains them from tending towards the path opposed to the scriptures-.

Indeed, when restrained with firmness, they do not incline towards objects prohibited by the scriptures. Sa, that; dhrtih, firmness, which is of this kind; is sattviki, born of sattva. What is mean is that when one restrains the functions of the mind, vital forces and organs with unfailing firmness, one does so through yoga, concentration. (Ⅳ)

- But, O Partha, the firmness with which one holds on to righteousness, covetable things and wealth, being desirous of their fruits as the occasion for each arises, that firmness is born of rajas. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Tu, but, O Partha; the dhrtya, firmness; yaya, with which; a person dharayate, holds on to; dharma-kama-arthan, righteousness, covetable things and wealth-entertains the conviction in the mind that these ought to be pursued always; and becomes phala-akanksi, desirous of their fruits; prasangena, as the occasion for each arises, according as the situation arises for holding on to any one of dharma etc.; sa, that; dhrtih, firmness; is rajasi, born of rajas. (Ⅳ)

- That firmness is considered [Some editions read partha in place of mata (considered).-Tr.] to be born of tamas due to which a person with a corrupt intellect does not give up sleep, fear, sorrow, despondency as also sensuality. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

That firmness is mata, considered to be; tamasi, born of tamas; yaya, due to which; durmedha, a person with a corrupt intellect; na vimuncati, does not give up-indeed, holds fast to; svapnam, sleep; bhayam, fear; sokam, sorrow; visadam, despondency; eva ca, as also; madam, sensuality, enjoyment of objects-mentally holding these as things that must always be resorted to, considering them to be greatly important to himself, like a drunkard thinking of wine. The threefold division of action as also of agents according to the differences of the gunas has been stated. After that, now is being stated the threefold division of results and happiness: (Ⅳ)

- Now hear from Me, O scion of the Bharata dynasty, as regards the three kinds of joy: That in which one delights owing to habit, and certainly attains the cessation of sorrows; [S. and S.S. take the second line of this verse along with the next verse referring to sattvika happiness.-Tr.] (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Idanim, now; srnu, hear; me, from Me i.e. be attentive to what I say; tu, as regards; the trividham, three kinds of; sukham, joy, O scion of the Bharata dynasty. Yatra, that in which; ramate, one delights, derives pleasure; abhyasat, owing to habit, due to frequent repetition; and in the experinece of which joy one nigacchati, certainly attains; duhkhantam, the cessation of sorrow-. (Ⅳ)

- That which is like poison in the beginning, but comparable to nectar in the end, and which, arises from the purity of one's intellect-that joy is spoken of as born of sattva. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Yat, that joy which is; iva, like; visam, poison, a source of pain; agre, in the beginning-when it first comes in the early stages of (acquisition) of knowledge, detachment, meditation and absorption, since they involve great struggle; but amrtopamam, comparable to nectar; pariname, in the end, when it arises from the maturity of knowledge, detachment, etc.; and which atma- buddhi-prasadajam, arises from the purity (prasada), trasparence like water, of one's intellect (atma-buddhi); tat, that; sukham, joy; is proktam, spoken of, by the learned ones ;as sattvikam, born of sattva. Or, the phrase atma-buddhi-prasadajam may mean 'arising from the high degree of clearness of that atma-buddhi (knowledge of or connected with the Self)';

Therefore it is born of sattva. (Ⅳ)

- That joy is referred to as born of rajas which, arising from the contact of the organs and (their) objects, is like nectar in the beginning, but like poison at the end. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Tat, that; sukham, joy; is smrtam, referred to; as rajasam, born of rajas; yat, which; visaya- indriya-samyogat, arising from the contact of the organs and (their) objects; is amrtopamam, like nectar; agre, in the beginning, in the initial moments; but iva, like; visam, poison; pariname, at the end-at the end of full enjoyment of the objects (of the senses), because it causes loss of strength, vigor, beauty, wisdom, [Prajna, the capacity to understand whatever is heard.] retentive faculty, wealth and diligence, and because it is the cause of vice and its consequent hell etc. (Ⅳ)

- That joy is said to be born of tams which, both in the beginning and in the sequel, is delusive to oneself and arises from sleep, laziness and inadvertence. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

That joy is udahrtam, said to be; tamasam, born of tamas; yat, which; both agre, in the beginning; ca, and; anubandhe, in the sequel, after the end (of enjoyment); is mohanam, delusive; atmanah, to oneself; and nidra-alasya-pramada- uttham, arises from sleep, laziness and inadvertence.

Therefore, now is begun a verse in order to conclude this section [The section showing that all things in the whole of creation are under the influence of the three gunas.]. (Ⅳ)

- There is no such entity in the world or, again, among the gods in heaven, which can be free from these three gunas born of Nature. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Na asti, there is no; tat, such; sattvam, entity, living creatures like men and others, or non-living things; prthivyam, in the world; va punah, or, again; an entity devesu, among the gods; divi, in heaven; yat, which; syat, can be [-this is connected with the preceding portion 'na tat, there is no such (entity)'-]; muktam, free; ebhih, from these; trubhih, three; gunaih, gunas, sattva etc.; prakrti- jaih, born of Nature. It has been said that the entire transmigratory state together with its roots, characterized by action, agent and results consisting of the gunas, sattva, rajas and tamas-, and projected by ignorance, is an evil. And this also has been said through the imagery of the Tree in the verse, '...which has its roots upward' etc. (15.1). It has been further said that, 'after felling that (Tree), with the strong sword of detachment, thereafter, that State has to be sought for' (15.3-4). And, as to that, since all things consist of the three gunas, there arises the impossibility of the eradication of the cause of worldly existence.

Hence, it has to be shown how it can be eradicated. Besides, the purport of the scripture Gita has to be summed up, and it has also to be shown that the import of all the Vedas and the Smrtis, which must be put into practice by those who long for the Goal of human life, is verily this much. Hence begin the verses, 'The duties of the Brahmanas, the Ksatriyas and the Vaisyas...', etc. (Ⅳ)

- O scorcher of enemies, the duties of the Brahmanas, the Ksatriyas and the Vaisyas, as also of the Sudras have been fully classified according to the gunas born from Nature. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Parantapa, O scorcher of enemies; karmani, the duties; brahmana-ksatriya-visam, of the Brahmanas, the Ksatriyas and the Vaisyas; ca, as also; sudranam, of the Surdras-the Sudras have not been included with the others (in the compound word) because, owing to their having a single birth, [Sudras have no right to be invested with the sacred thread which, in the case of the other three castes, symbolizes a second birth.] they have no right to (the study of) the Vedas; pravibhaktani, have been fully classified, have been prescribed by making distinctions among them;-according to what?-gunahi, according to the gunas; svabhava- prabhavaih, born from Nature. Nature means the Praktrti of God, His Maya consisting of the three gunas. 'Born from Nature' means 'born of these three gunas. In accordnace with these the duties such as control of the internal organs, etc. of the Brahmanas and others have been classified. Or (the meaning is): The source of the nature of the Brahmanas is the quality of sattva.

Similarly, the source of the nature of the Ksatriyas is rajas, with sattva as a subordinate (quality); the source of the nature of the Vaisyas is rajas, with tamas as the subordinate (quality); the source of the nature of the Sudras is tamas, with rajas as the subordinate (quality); for the natures of the four are seen to be tranquility. lordliness, industriousness and dullness respectively. Or, svabhava (nature) means the (individual) tendencies of creatures earned in their past lives, which have become manifest in the present life for yielding their own results. The gunas which have that svabhava as their source (prabhava) are svabhava-prabhavah gunah. Since the manifestation of the gunas cannot logically be uncaused, therefore a specific cause [i.e. the tendencies are the efficient cause, and Nature is the material cause.] has been posited by saying that Nature is the cause.

Thus, the duties such as control of the internal organs etc. have been classified in keeping with the effects of the gunas, sattva, rajas and tamas, which are born of Nature, born of Prakrti.

Objection: Well, are not the duties like controlling the internal organs etc. of the Brahmanas and others classified and enjoined by the scriptures? Why is it said that they are classified according to the gunas sattva etc.?

Reply: This objection is not valid. For, the duties like controlling the internal organs etc. of the Brahmanas and others have been classified even by the scriptures verily in keeping with the specific qualities sattva etc.; certainly, not without reference to the gunas.

Hence, though the duties have been divided by the scriptures, they are said to have been classified according to the gunas. Which, again, are those duties? They are being spoken of: (Ⅳ)

- The natural duties of the Brahmanas are the control of the internal and external organs, austerity, purity, forgiveness, straightforwardness, knowledge as also wisdom [Knowledge refers to the understanding of subjects presented by the scriptures; wisdom means making them matters of one's own experience.] and faith. 18.42 Svabhavajam brahma-karma, the natural duties of the Brhamanas, of the Brahmana caste; are samah, control of the internal organs; damah, control of the external organs-these bear the meanings as explained earlier (see 6.3, 10.4, 16.1); tapah, austerity-bodily austerity, as explained before (17.14); saucam, purity, as already explained (in 13.7, 16.3); ksantih, forgiveness; arjavam, straightforwardness, simplicity; jnanam, knowledge; eva ca, as also vijnanam, wisdom; astikyam, faith, the idea of truth [Truth of the scritpures, existence of God, etc. In place of asti- bhavah Ast reads astika-bhavah, the feeling of conviction with regard to the existence of God and the other world. Tr.] respect for the teaching of the scriptures. By svabhavajam (natural) is conveyed the very same idea as was expressed in 'classified according to the gunas born from Nature' (41). (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Svabhavajam brahma-karma, the natural duties of the Brhamanas, of the Brahmana caste; are samah, control of the internal organs; damah, control of the external organs-these bear the meanings as explained earlier (see 6.3, 10.4, 16.1); tapah, austerity-bodily austerity, as explained before (17.14); saucam, purity, as already explained (in 13.7, 16.3); ksantih, forgiveness; arjavam, straightforwardness, simplicity; jnanam, knowledge; eva ca, as also vijnanam, wisdom; astikyam, faith, the idea of truth [Truth of the scritpures, existence of God, etc. In place of asti- bhavah Ast reads astika-bhavah, the feeling of conviction with regard to the existence of God and the other world. Tr.] respect for the teaching of the scriptures. By svabhavajam (natural) is conveyed the very same idea as was expressed in 'classified according to the gunas born from Nature' (41). (Ⅳ)

- The natural duties of the Ksatriyas are heroism, boldness, fortitude, capability, and also not retreating from battle, generosity and lordliness. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Svabhavajam, the natural; ksatra-karma, [A variant reading is ksatram karma.-Tr.] enjoined duties of the Ksatriyas, of the Ksatriya caste; are sauryam, heroism; tejah, boldness; dhrtih, fortitude, as is seen in the case of one who is not depressed under all circumstances, being sustained by doggedness; daksyam, capability engagement without confusion in duties which suddenly present them-selves; api ca, and also; apalayanam, not retreating; yuddhe, from battle, not fleeing from enemies; danam, generosity, being free in the distribution of gifts; isvarabhavah, lordliness, manifesting (exercising) rulership over those who have to be ruled. (Ⅳ)

- The natural duties of the Vaisyas are agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade. Of the Sudras, too, the natural duty is in the form of service. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Svabyavajam, the natural; vaisya-karma, duties of the Vaisyas, of the Vaisya caste; are krsi- gauraksyavanijyam, agriculture, cattle rearing and trade: Krsi is tilling of land. Orre who rears cattle (go) is goraksa; the abstract form of that word is gauraksyam, animal-husbandry. Vanijyam means the occupation of a trader, consisting of buying and selling. Sudrasya, of the Sudra; api, too; svabhavajam, the natural; karma, duty; is paricaryatmakam, in the form of service. When rightly pursued, the natural result of these duties enjoined for the castes is the attainment of heaven- which act is evident from such Smrti texts as, 'People belonging to the castes and stages of life, who are true to their own duties, experience after death the fruit of their actions. And after that, as a result of the remnants of their merits they are born in some excellent region, caste and family, with greater piety, longevity, learning, conduct, wealth, happiness and intelligence' (Ap. Dh. Su. 2.2.2.3), etc. And in the Puranas also it is particularly mentioned that people belonging to the (different) castes and stages of life come to have specific results in the form of different worlds. But this result that is going to be stated follows from a different cause: (Ⅳ)

- Being devoted to his own duty, man attains complete success. Hear that as to how one devoted to his own duty achieves success. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Sve sve karmani abhiratah, being devoted to his own duty, which has different characteristics as stated above; narah, man, the person qualified therefor; labhate, attains; samsiddhim, complete success, characterized as the ability for steadfastness in Knowledge, which follows from the elimination of the impurities of body and mind as a result of fulfilling his own duty. Does the complete success follow merely from the fulfilment of one's own duty? No. How then? Srnu, hear; tat, that; yatha, as to how, through what means; sva-karma-niratah, one devoted to his own duty; vindati, achieves; siddim, success. (Ⅳ)

- A human being achieves success by adoring through his own duties Him from whom is the origin of creatures, and by whom is all this pervaded. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Manavah, a human being; vindati, achieves; siddhim, success, merely in the form of the ability for steadfastness in Knowledge; abhyarcya, by adoring, worshipping; svakarmana, with his own duties stated above, as allotted to each caste; tam, Him, God; yatah, from whom, from which God; comes pravrttih, origin,-or, from which internal Ruler comes the activities; ;bhutanam, of creatures, of living beings; and yena, by whom, by which God; is tatam, pervaded; sarvam, all; idam, this world. Since this is so, therefore, (Ⅳ)

- One's own duty, (though) defective, is superior to another's duty well performed. By performing a duty as dictated by one's own nature, one does not incur sin. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Svadharmah, one's own duty; though vigunah, defective-the word though has to be supplied-; is sreyan, superior to, more praiseworthy than; paradharmat, another's duty; su-anusthitat, well performed. Kurvan, by performing; karma, a duty; svabhavaniyatam, as dictated by one's own nature-this phrase means the same as svabhavajam (born from Nature) which has been stated earlier-; na apnoti, one does not incur; kilbisam, sin. As poison is not harmful to a worm born it it, so one does not incur sin by performing a duty dictated by one's own nature. It has been said that, as in the case of a worm born in poison, a person does not incur sin while performing his duties which have been dictated by his own nature; and that someone else's duty is fraught with fear; also that, one who does not have the knowledge of the Self, (he) surely cannot remain even for a moment without doing work (cf. 3.5). Hence- (Ⅳ)

- O son of Kunti, one should not give up the duty to which one is born, even though it be faulty. For all undertakings are surrounded with evil, as fire is with smoke. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Kaunteya, O son of Kunti; na tyajet, one should not give up;-what?-the karma, duty; sahajam, to which one is born, which devolves from the very birth; api, even though; it be sadosam, faulty, consisting as it is of the three gunas. Hi, for; sarva-arambhah, all undertakings (- whatever are begun are arambhah, i.e. 'all actions', according to the context-), being constituted by the three gunas (-here, the fact of being constituted by the three gunas is the cause-); are avrtah, surrounded; dosena, with evil; iva, as;; agnih, fire; is dhumena, with smoke, which comes into being concurrently. One does not get freed from evil by giving up the duty to which one is born-called one's own duty-, even though (he may be) fulfilling somebody else's duty. Another's duty, too, is fraught with fear. The meaning is: Since action cannot be totally given up by an unenlightened person, therefore he should not relinquish it. Opponent: Well, is it that one should not abandon action because it cannot be given up completely, or is it because evil [Evil resulting from discarding daily obligatory duties.] follows from the giving up of the duty to which one is born? Counter-

Objection: What follows from this? Opponent: If it be that the duty to which one is born should not be renounced because it is impossible to relinquish it totally, then the conclusion that can be arrived at is that complete renunciation (of duty) is surely meritorious! Counter-

Objection: Truly so. But, may it not be that total relinquishment is itself an impossibility? Is a person ever-changeful like the gunas of the Sankhyas, or is it that action itself is the agent, as it is in the case of the momentary five [Rupa (from), vedana (feeling), vijnana (momentary consciousness), sanjna (notion), samskara (mental impressions)-these have only momentary existence. In their case there can be no distinction between action and agent, simply due to the fact of their being momentary.] forms of mundane consciousness propounded by the Buddhists? In either case there can be no complete renunciation of action. Then there is also a third standpoint (as held by the Vaisesikas):

When a thing acts it is active, and inactive when that very thing does not act. If this be the case here, it is possible to entirely give up actions. But the specialty of the third point of view is that a thing is not ever-changing, nor is action itself the agent. What then? A nonexistent action originates in an existing thing, and an existing action gets destroyed. The thing-in-itself continues to exist along with its power (to act), and that itself is the agent. This is what the followers of Kanada say. [Their view is that agentship consists in 'possessing the power to act', not in being the substratum of action.] What is wrong with this point of view.

Vedantin: The defect indeed lies in this that, this view is not in accord with the Lord's view.

Objection: How is this known?

Vedantin: Since the Lord as said, 'Of the unreal there is no being...,' etc. (2.16). The view of the followers of Kanada is, indeed, this that the non-existent becomes existent, and the existent becomes nonexistent.

Objection: What defect can there be if it be that this view, even though not the view of the Lord, yet conforms to reason?

Vedantin: The answer is: This is surely faulty since it contradicts all valid evidence.

Objection: How?

Vedantin: As to this, if things like a dvyanuka (dyad of two anus, atoms) be absolutely nonexistent before origination, and after origination continue for a little while, and again become absolutely non-existent, then, in that case, the existent which was verily nonexistent comes into being, [Here Ast. adds, 'sadeva asattvam apadyate, that which is verily existent becomes nonexistent'.-Tr.] a non-entity becomes an entity, and an entity becomes a non-entity! If this be the view, then the non-entity that is to take birth is comparable to the horns of a hare before it is born, and it comes into being with the help of what are called material (inherent), non-material (non- inherent) and efficient causes. But it cannot be said that nonexistence has origination in this way, or that it depends on some cause, since this is not seen in the case of nonexistent things like horns of a hare, etc.

If such things as pot etc. which are being produced be of the nature of (potentially) existing things, then it can be accepted that they originate by depending on some cause which merely manifests them. [According to Vedanta, before origination a thing, e.g. a pot, remains latent in its material cause, clay for instance, with its name and form unexpressed, and it depends on other causes for the manifestation of name and form.]

Moreover, if the nonexistent becomes existent, and the existent becomes non-existent, then nobody will have any faith while dealing with any of the means of valid knowledge objects of such knowledge, because the conviction will be lacking that the existent is existent and the nonexistent is nonexistent! Further, when they speak of origination, they (the Viasesikas) hold that such a thing as a dvyanuka (dyad) comes to have relationship with its own (material) causes (the two atoms) and existence, and that it is nonexistent before origination; but later on, depending on the operation of its own causes, it becomes connected with its own causes, viz the atoms, as also with existence, through the inherent (or inseparable) relationship called samavaya.

After becoming connected, it becomes an existent thing by its inherent relationship with its causes. [The effect (dyad) has inherent relationship with existence after its material causes (the two atoms) come into association.] It has to be stated in this regard as to how the nonexistent can have an existent as its cause, or have relationship with anything. For nobody can establish through any valid means of knowledge that a son of a barren woman can have any existence or relationship or cause. Vaisesika: Is it not that relationship of a non-existent thing is not at all established by the Vaisesikas?

Indeed, what is said by them is that only existent entities like dvyanuka etc. have the relationship in the form of samavaya with their own causes.

Vedantin: No, for it is not admitted (by them) that anything has existence before the (samavaya) relationship (occurs). It is surely not held by the Vaisesikas that a pot etc. have any existence before the potter, (his) stick, wheel, etc. start functioning. Nor do they admit that clay itself takes the shape of a pot etc. As a result, it has to be admitted (by them) as the last alternative that nonexistence itself has some relationship! Vaisesika: Well, it is not contradictory even for a nonexistent thing to have the relationship in the form of inherence.

Vedantin: No, because this is not seen in the case of a son of a barren woman etc. If the antecedent nonexistence (prag-abhava) of the pot etc. alone comes into a relationship with its own (material) cause, but not so the nonexistence of the son of a barren woman etc. though as nonexistence both are the same, then the distinction between the (two) non-existences has to be explained. Through such descriptions ( of abhava, nonexistence) as nonexistence of one, nonexistence of two, nonexistence of all, antecedent nonexistence, nonexistence after destruction, mutual nonexistence and absolute non-existence, nobody can show any distinction (as regards nonexistence itself)! T

here being no distinction, (Therefore, to say that:) 'it is only the "antecedent nonexistence" of the pot which takes the form of the pot through the (action of) the potter and others, and comes into a relationship with the existing pot-halves which are its own (material) causes and becomes fit for all empirical processes [Such as production, destruction, etc.] but the "nonexistence after destruction" of that very pot does not do so, though it, too, is nonexistence.

Hence, the "nonexistence after destruction", etc. [Etc. stands for 'mutual nonexistence (anyonya- abhava)' and 'absolute nonexistence (atyanta- abhava)'.] are not fit for any empirical processes, whereas only the "antecedent nonexistence" of things called dvyanuka etc. is fit for such empirical processes as origination etc.'-all this is incongruous, since as nonexistence it is indistinguishable, as are 'absolute nonexistence' and 'nonexistence after destruction'. Vaisesika: Well, it is not at all said by us that the 'antecedent nonexistence' becomes existent.

Vedantin: In that case, the existent itself becomes existent , as for instance, a pot's becoming a pot, or a cloth's becoming a cloth. This, too, like nonexistence becoming existent, goes against valid evidence. Even the theory of transformation held by the Sankhyas does not differ from the standpoint of the Vaisesikas, since they believe in the origination of some new attribute [i.e. in the origination of a transformation that did not exist before.] and its destruction. Even if manifestation and disappearance of anything be accepted, yet there will be contradiction with valid means of knowledge as before in the explanation of existence or nonexistence of manifestation and disappearance. Hereby is also refuted the idea that origination etc. (of an effect) are merely particular states of its cause. As the last alternative, it is only the one entity called Existence that is imagined variously through ignorance to be possessed of the states of origination, destruction, etc. like an actor (on a stage). This view of the Lord has been stated in the verse, 'Of the unreal there is no being...' (2.16). For, the idea of existence is constant, while the others are inconstant.

Objection: If the Self be immutable, then how does the 'renunciation of all actions' become illogical?

Vedantin: If the adjuncts (i.e. body and organs) be real or imagined through ignorance, in either case, action, which is their attribute, is surely superimposed on the Self through ignorance. From this point of view it has been said that an unenlightened person is incapable of totally renouncing actions even for a moment (cf. 3.5).

The enlightened person, On the other hand, can indeed totally renounce actions when ignorance has been dispelled through Illumination; for it is illogical that there can (then) remain any trace of what has been superimposed through ignorance.

Indeed, no trace remains of the two moons, etc. superimposed by the vision affected by (the disease called) Timira when the disease is cured. This being so, the utterance, 'having given up all actions mentally' (5.13), etc. as also, 'Being devoted to his own duty' (45) and 'A human being achieves 'success by adoring Him through his own duties (46), becomes justifiable. What was verily spoken of as the success arising from Karma (-yoga), characterized as the fitness for steadfastness in Knowledge,-the fruit of that (fitness), characterized as 'steadfastness in Knowledge' consisting in the perfection in the form of the state of one (i.e. a monk) free from duties, has to be stated. Hence the (following) verse is begun: (Ⅳ)

- He whose intellect remains unattached to everything, who has conquered his internal organs and is desireless, attains through monasticism the supreme perfection consisting in the state of one free from duties. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Asakta-buddhih, he whose intellect, the internal organ, remains unattached; sarvatra, to everything, with regard to son, wife and others who are the causes of attachment; jitatma, who has conquered his internal organs; and vigata-sprhah, who is desireless, whose thirst for his body, life and objects of enjoyment have been eradicated;-he who is such a knower of the Self, adhigaccahti, attains; sannyasena, through monasticism, through perfect knowledge or through renunciation of all actions preceded by this knowledge; the paramam, supreme, most excellent; naiskarmya-siddhim, perfection consisting in the state of one free from duties. One is said to be free from duties from whom duties have daparted as a result of realizing that the actionless Brahman is his Self; his state is naiskarmyam. That siddhi (perfection) which is this naiskarmya is naiskarmya-siddhi. Or, this phrase means 'achievement of naiskarmya', i.e., achievement of the state of remaining established in one's own real nature as the actionless Self- which is different from the success arising from Karma (-yoga), and is of the form of being established in the state of immediate Liberation.

Accordingly has it been said, '...having given up all actions mentally,...without doing or causing (others) to do anything at all' (5.13). The stages through which one who has attained success- which has the aforesaid characteristics and which arises from the performance of one's own duties mentioned earlier as worship of God-, and in whom has arisen discriminative knowledge, achieves perfection-in the form of exclusive adherence to Knowledge of the Self and consisting in the state of one free from duties-have to be stated. With this is view the Lord says: (Ⅳ)

- Understand for certain from Me, in brief indeed, O son of Kunti, that process by which one who has achieved success attains Brahman, which is the supreme consummation of Knowledge. (Ⅲ)

- Sri Sankaracharya's commentary (english) :

Nibodha, understand for certain; me, from Me, from My utterance-. Is it elaborately? The Lord says, no, samasena, in brief; eva, >Indeed, O son of Kunti, how siddhim praptah, one who has achieved success, one who, by worshipping God through one's duties, has achieved success in the form of fitness of the body and organs for steadfastness in Knowledge, which comes from His grace; (-the reiteration of the phrase siddhim praptah is meant for introducing what follows; what is that succeeding subject for which this reiteration stands is being answered:) yatha tatha, that process by which, that process in the form of steadfastness in Knowledge, by which that process of acquiring steadfastness in Knowledge by which; apnoti, attains; brahma, Brahman, th supreme Self-. In order to point out-as 'It is this'-the realization of Brahman which was promised in, 'that process by which one...attains Brahman,' the Lord says; ya, which; is the para, supreme; nistha, consummation, i.e. the supreme culmination; jnanasya, of Knowledge. Of what? Of the knowledge of Brahman.


Objection: Is it not that knowledge takes the form of its object? But it is not admitted anywhere that the Self is an object, or even that It has form. Pseudo-

Vedantin: Is it not heard of in such texts as, 'radiant like the sun' (Sv. 3.8), 'Of the nature of effulgence' (Ch. 3.14.2) and 'Self-effulgent' (Br. 4.3.9), that the Self has form?

Objection: No, because those sentences are meant for refuting the idea that the Self is of the nature of darkness. When the Self is denied of possessing forms of substance, quality, etc., the contingency arises of the Self's being of the nature of darkness. The sentences, 'radiant like the sun,' etc. are meant for rebuting this.


Therefore it remains unproved that there can be any knowledge which takes the form of the Self. How, then, can there be the knowledge of the Self? For, all knowledge that there can be with regard to objects assumes their respective forms. And it has been said that the Self has no form.

Moreover, if both knowledge and the Self be formless, then how can there be the consummation [Firmness in Self-realization.] of the (repeated) contemplation on that (knowledge of the Self)?

Vedantin: No. Since it can be established that the Self is supremely taintless, pure and subtle, and it can also be established that the intellect can have taintlessness etc. like the Self, therefore it stands to reason that the intellect can take a form resembling the consciousness of the Self. The mind becomes impressed with the semblance of the intellect; the organs become impressed with the semblance of the mind; and the body becomes impressed with the semblance of the organs. Hence it is that the idea of the body itself being the Self is held by ordinary people. The Lokayatikas (materialists), who hold that the body is identical with consciousness, say that a person is a body endowed with consciousness; so also there are others who say that the organs are identical with consciousness; there are others who say that the mind is identical with consciousness, and still others who say that the intellect is identical with consciousness. Some accept as the Self the Unmanifest [The inmost Ruler (antaryamin), possessing a semblance of Consciousness.], called the Undifferentiated, which is more internal than that (intellect) and is within the domain of (primordial) ignorance.

Indeed, in every case, beginning from the intellect to the body, the cause of mis-conceived Selfhood is the semblance of the Consciousness that is the Self.

Hence, knowledge about the Self is not a subject for injunction. What then? Only the eradication of the superimposition of name, form, etc., which are not the Self, is what has to be undertaken, but not the knowledge of the Self that is Consciousness. For it is the Self which is experienced as possessed of the forms of all the various objects that are superimposed (on It) through ignorance. It is evidently because of this that the Buddhists who uphold the view of (momentary) consciousness have concluded that there is no substance at all apart from (momentary) consciousness, and that it is not in need of any other valid proof since they hold that it is self- cognized.

Therefore, what is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the superimposition on Brahman through ignorance, but no effort is needed for knowing Brahman (Consciousness), for It is quite self-evident! It is because the intellect is distracted by particular appearances of name and form imagined through ignorance that Brahman, even though self-evident, easily realizable, nearer than all else and identical with oneself, appears to be concealed, difficult to realize, very far and different, But to those whose intellect has become free from external appearances and who have obtained the grace of a teacher and serenity of mind, there is nothing more blissful, manifest, well known, easily realized and nearer to oneself than this Self. And thus it has been declared, 'directly realizable, righteous,' etc. (9.2). However, some wiseacres assert that the intellect cannot comprehend the entity called the Self since It is formless; hence, complete steadfastness in Knowledge is impossible. This is truly so for those who have not associated with a traditional line of teachers; who have not heard the Upanishads ; whose intellects are too much engrossed with external objects; and who have not applied themselves diligently to the perfect means of knowledge. For those, on the other hand, who are the opposite of these, it is absolutely impossible to have the idea of reality with regard to empirical objects, which are within the realm of duality involving the knower and the known, because in their case there is no perception of any other thing apart from the Consciousness that is the Self. We have already said how this is certainly so and not otherwise. It has been stated by the Lord also, 'That during which creatures keep awake, it is night to the seeing sage' (2.69).

Therefore, the cessation of the perception of differences in the form of external things is alone the cause of resting in the reality of the Self. For, that which is called the Self is never an object which is not well known, attainable, rejectable or acceptable to anyone at any time. Were that Self to be indeed not self-evident, all activities would become meaningless. [According to Ast. the latter portion of this sentence is: svarthah sarvah pravrttayah vyarthah prasajyeran, all activities meant for one's own benefit would become meaningless.-Tr.]. For it cannot be imagined that they could be undertaken for unconscious objects like the body etc. Besides, it cannot be that pleasure is for pleasure's sake, or that sorrow is for sorrow's sake.

Moreover, all empirical dealings are meant for culminating in the realization of the Self. [According to B.S. 3.4.26, 'On the strength of the Upanisadic sanction of sacrifices etc. all religious activities as well are necessary...', sacrifices etc. are meant for leading to the realization of the Self, without which they would become meaningless.]

Therefore, just as for knowing one's own body there is no need of any other (external) means of knowledge so also there is no need of any other means of knowledge, for the realization of the Self which is innermost (in relation to the body etc.). Hence it is established that steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self is a fact very well known to the discriminating people. Even to those who hold that knowledge is formless and not cognized by direct perception, cognition of an object is dependent on knowledge. Hence it has to be admitted that knowledge is as immediate as pleasure etc. And this follows also from the impossibility of a desire to know (knowledge). Had knowledge been not self-evident, it could have been sought for like any object of knowledge. And in that case, as [This is Ast.'s reading; others read tatha.-Tr.] a knower seeks to perceive through knowledge such objects of knowledge as pot etc., similarly the knower would have sought to perceive knowledge through another knowledge! But this is not the case.

Therefore knowledge is quite self-revealing, and for the very same reason the knower also is self-revealed.

Hence, effort is not needed for knowledge, but only for the removal of the notion of what is not-Self. [In place of anatma-buddhi-nivrttau, Ast. has 'anatmani atma-buddhi-nivrttau, for the termination of thinking what is not the Self as the Self'.-Tr.] Consequently, steadfastness in Knowledge is easy of accomplishment. It is being stated how this supreme consummation of Knowledge is to be attained: (Ⅳ)