||2.21||
वेद विजानाति अविनाशिनम् अन्त्यभावविकाररहितं नित्यं विपरिणामरहितं यो वेद इति सम्बन्धः । एनं पूर्वेण मन्त्रेणोक्तलक्षणम् अजं जन्मरहितम् अव्ययम् अपक्षयरहितं कथं केन प्रकारेण सः विद्वान् पुरुषः अधिकृतः हन्ति हननक्रियां करोति, कथं वा घातयति हन्तारं प्रयोजयति ।
veda vijānāti avināśinam antyabhāvavikārarahitaṃ nityaṃ vipariṇāmarahitaṃ yo veda iti sambandhaḥ | enaṃ pūrveṇa mantreṇoktalakṣaṇam ajaṃ janmarahitam avyayam apakṣayarahitaṃ kathaṃ kena prakāreṇa saḥ vidvān puruṣaḥ adhikṛtaḥ hanti hananakriyāṃ karoti, kathaṃ vā ghātayati hantāraṃ prayojayati |
He who knows this One as indestructible, etc. Yah, he who; veda, knows yah is to be thus connected with Veda ; enam, this One, possessing the characteristics stated in the earlier mantra; as avinasinam, indestructible, devoid of the final change of state; nityam, eternal, devoid of transformation; ajam, birthless; and avyayam, undecaying; katham, how, in what way; (and kam, whom;) does sah, that man of realization; purusah, the person who is himself an authority [i.e. above all injunctions and prohibitions. See 18.16.17.-Tr.]; hanti, kill, undertake the act of killing; or how ghatayati, does he cause (others) to be killed, (how does he) instigate a killer.
न कथञ्चित् कञ्चित् हन्ति, न कथञ्चित् कञ्चित् घातयति इति उभयत्र आक्षेप एवार्थः, प्रश्नार्थासम्भवात् । हेत्वर्थस्य च अविक्रियत्वस्य तुल्यत्वात् विदुषः सर्वकर्मप्रतिषेध एव प्रकरणार्थः अभिप्रेतो भगवता । हन्तेस्तु आक्षेपः उदाहरणार्थत्वेन कथितः ॥
na kathañcit kañcit hanti, na kathañcit kañcit ghātayati iti ubhayatra ākṣepa evārthaḥ, praśnārthāsambhavāt | hetvarthasya ca avikriyatvasya tulyatvāt viduṣaḥ sarvakarmapratiṣedha eva prakaraṇārthaḥ abhipreto bhagavatā | hantestu ākṣepaḥ udāharaṇārthatvena kathitaḥ ||
The intention is to deny both (the acts) by saying, 'In no way does he kill any one, nor does he cause anyone to be killed', because an interrogative sense is absurd (here). Since the implication of the reason [The reason for the denial of killing etc. is the changelessness of the Self, and this reason holds good with regard to all actions of the man of realization.-Tr.], viz the immutability of the Self, [The A.A. omits 'viz the immutability of the Self'.-Tr.] is common (with regard to all actions), therefore the negation of all kinds of actions in the case of a man of realization is what the Lord conveys as the only purport of this context. But the denial of (the act of) killing has been cited by way of an example.
विदुषः कं कर्मासम्भवहेतुविशेषं पश्यन् कर्माण्याक्षिपति भगवान् ‘कथं स पुरुषः’ इति ।
ननु उक्त एवात्मनः अविक्रियत्वं सर्वकर्मासम्भवकारणविशेषः । सत्यमुक्तः । न तु सः कारणविशेषः, अन्यत्वात् विदुषः अविक्रियादात्मनः ।
viduṣaḥ kaṃ karmāsambhavahetuviśeṣaṃ paśyan karmāṇyākṣipati bhagavān ‘kathaṃ sa puruṣaḥ’ iti |
nanu ukta evātmanaḥ avikriyatvaṃ sarvakarmāsambhavakāraṇaviśeṣaḥ | satyamuktaḥ | na tu saḥ kāraṇaviśeṣaḥ, anyatvāt viduṣaḥ avikriyādātmanaḥ |
Objection: By noticing what special reason for the impossibility of actions in the case of the man of realization does the Lord deny all actions (in his case) by saying, 'How can that person,' etc.?
Vedantin: Has not the immutability of the Self been already stated as the reason [Some readings omit this word.-Tr.] , the specific ground for the impossibility of all actions?
न हि अविक्रियं स्थाणुं विदितवतः कर्म न सम्भवति इति चेत् ,
न ; विदुषः आत्मत्वात् । न देहादिसङ्घातस्य विद्वत्ता । अतः पारिशेष्यात् असंहतः आत्मा विद्वान् अविक्रियः इति तस्य विदुषः कर्मासम्भवात् आक्षेपो युक्तः ‘कथं स पुरुषः’ इति ।
na hi avikriyaṃ sthāṇuṃ viditavataḥ karma na sambhavati iti cet ,
na ; viduṣaḥ ātmatvāt | na dehādisaṅghātasya vidvattā | ataḥ pāriśeṣyāt asaṃhataḥ ātmā vidvān avikriyaḥ iti tasya viduṣaḥ karmāsambhavāt ākṣepo yuktaḥ ‘kathaṃ sa puruṣaḥ’ iti |
Objection: It is true that it has been stated; but that is not a specific ground, for the man of realization is different from the immutable Self. Indeed, may it not be argued that action does not become impossible for one who has known as unchanging stump of a tree?!
Vedantin: No, because of man of Knowledge is one with the Self. Enlightenment does not belong to the aggregate of body and senses. Therefore, as the last laternative, the knower is the Immutable and is the Self which is not a part of the aggregate. Thus, action being impossible for that man of Knowledge, the denial in, 'How can that person' etc. is reasonable.
यथा बुद्ध्याद्याहृतस्य शब्दाद्यर्थस्य अविक्रिय एव सन् बुद्धिवृत्त्यविवेकविज्ञानेन अविद्यया उपलब्धा आत्मा कल्प्यते, एवमेव आत्मानात्मविवेकज्ञानेन बुद्धिवृत्त्या विद्यया असत्यरूपयैव परमार्थतः अविक्रिय एव आत्मा विद्वानुच्यते ।
yathā buddhyādyāhṛtasya śabdādyarthasya avikriya eva san buddhivṛttyavivekavijñānena avidyayā upalabdhā ātmā kalpyate, evameva ātmānātmavivekajñānena buddhivṛttyā vidyayā asatyarūpayaiva paramārthataḥ avikriya eva ātmā vidvānucyate |
As on account of the lack of knowledge of the distinction between the Self and the modifications of the intellect, the Self, though verily immutable, is imagined through ignorance to be the perceiver of objects like sound etc. presented by the intellect etc., in this very way, the Self, which in reality is immutable, is said to be the 'knower' because of Its association with the knowledge of the distinction between the Self and non-Self, which (knowledge) is a modification of the intellect [By buddhi-vrtti, modification of the intellect, is meant the transformation of the internal organ into the form of an extension upto an object, along with its past impressions, the senses concerned, etc., like the extension of the light of a lamp illuminating an object. Consciousness reflected on this transformation and remaining indistinguishable from that transformation revealing the object, is called objective knowledge. Thery, due to ignorance, the Self is imagined to be the perceiver because of Its connection with the vrtti, modification. (-A.G.) The process is elsewhere described as follows: The vrtti goes out through the sense-organ concerned, like the flash of a torchlight, and along with it goes the reflection of Consciousness. Both of them envelop the object, a pot for instance. The vrtti destroys the ignorance about the pot; and the reflection of Consciousness, becoming unified with only that portion of it which has been delimited by the pot, reveals the pot. In the case of knowledge of Brahman, it is admitted that the vrtti in the form, 'I am Brahman', does reach Brahman and destroys ignorance about Brahman, but it is not admitted that Brahman is revealed like a 'pot', for Brahman is self-effulgent.-Tr.] and is unreal by nature.
विदुषः कर्मासम्भववचनात् यानि कर्माणि शास्त्रेण विधीयन्ते तानि अविदुषो विहितानि इति भगवतो निश्चयोऽवगम्यते ॥
viduṣaḥ karmāsambhavavacanāt yāni karmāṇi śāstreṇa vidhīyante tāni aviduṣo vihitāni iti bhagavato niścayo'vagamyate ||
From the statement that action is impossible for man of realization it is understood that the conclusion of the Lord is that, actions enjoined by the scriptures are prescribed for the unenlightened.
ननु विद्यापि अविदुष एव विधीयते, विदितविद्यस्य पिष्टपेषणवत् विद्याविधानानर्थक्यात् । तत्र अविदुषः कर्माणि विधीयन्ते न विदुषः इति विशेषो नोपपद्यते इति चेत् ,
न ; अनुष्ठेयस्य भावाभावविशेषोपपत्तेः । अग्निहोत्रादिविध्यर्थज्ञानोत्तरकालम् अग्निहोत्रादिकर्म अनेकसाधनोपसंहारपूर्वकमनुष्ठेयम् ‘कर्ता अहम् , मम कर्तव्यम्’ इत्येवंप्रकारविज्ञानवतः अविदुषः यथा अनुष्ठेयं भवति, न तु तथा ‘न जायते’ इत्याद्यात्मस्वरूपविध्यर्थज्ञानोत्तरकालभावि किञ्चिदनुष्ठेयं भवति ; किं तु ‘नाहं कर्ता, नाहं भोक्ता’ इत्याद्यात्मैकत्वाकर्तृत्वादिविषयज्ञानात् नान्यदुत्पद्यते इति एष विशेष उपपद्यते ।
nanu vidyāpi aviduṣa eva vidhīyate, viditavidyasya piṣṭapeṣaṇavat vidyāvidhānānarthakyāt | tatra aviduṣaḥ karmāṇi vidhīyante na viduṣaḥ iti viśeṣo nopapadyate iti cet ,
na ; anuṣṭheyasya bhāvābhāvaviśeṣopapatteḥ | agnihotrādividhyarthajñānottarakālam agnihotrādikarma anekasādhanopasaṃhārapūrvakamanuṣṭheyam ‘kartā aham , mama kartavyam’ ityevaṃprakāravijñānavataḥ aviduṣaḥ yathā anuṣṭheyaṃ bhavati, na tu tathā ‘na jāyate’ ityādyātmasvarūpavidhyarthajñānottarakālabhāvi kiñcidanuṣṭheyaṃ bhavati ; kiṃ tu ‘nāhaṃ kartā, nāhaṃ bhoktā’ ityādyātmaikatvākartṛtvādiviṣayajñānāt nānyadutpadyate iti eṣa viśeṣa upapadyate |
Objection: Is not elightenment too enjoined for the ignorant? For, the injunction about enlightenment to one who has already achieved realization is useless, like grinding something that has already been ground! This being so, the distinction that rites and duties are enjoined for the unenlightened, and not for the enlightened one, does not stand to reason.
Vedantin: No. There can reasonable be a distinction between the existence or nonexistence of a thing to be performed. As after the knowledge of the meaning of the injunction for rites like Agnihotra etc. their performance becomes bligatory on the unenlightened one who thinks, 'Agnihotra etc. has to be performed by collecting various accessories; I am the agent, and this is my duty', unlike this, nothing remains later on to be performed as a duty after knowing the meaning of the injunction about the nature of the Self from such texts as, 'Never is this One born,' etc. But apart from the rise of knowledge regarding the unity of the Self, his non-agency, etc., in the form, 'I am not the agent, I am not the enjoyer', etc., no other idea arises. Thus, this distinction can be maintained.
यः पुनः ‘कर्ता अहम्’ इति वेत्ति आत्मानम् , तस्य ‘मम इदं कर्तव्यम्’ इति अवश्यंभाविनी बुद्धिः स्यात् ; तदपेक्षया सः अधिक्रियते इति तं प्रति कर्माणि सम्भवन्ति । स च अविद्वान् , ‘उभौ तौ न विजानीतः’ (भ. गी. २ । १९) इति वचनात् , विशेषितस्य च विदुषः कर्माक्षेपवचनाच्च ‘कथं स पुरुषः’ इति ।
yaḥ punaḥ ‘kartā aham’ iti vetti ātmānam , tasya ‘mama idaṃ kartavyam’ iti avaśyaṃbhāvinī buddhiḥ syāt ; tadapekṣayā saḥ adhikriyate iti taṃ prati karmāṇi sambhavanti | sa ca avidvān , ‘ubhau tau na vijānītaḥ’ (bha. gī. 2 | 19) iti vacanāt , viśeṣitasya ca viduṣaḥ karmākṣepavacanācca ‘kathaṃ sa puruṣaḥ’ iti |
Again, for anyone who knows himself as, 'I am the agent', there will necessarily arise the idea, 'This is my duty.' In relation to that he becomes eligible. In this way duties are (enjoined) [Ast. adds 'sambhavanti, become possible'.-Tr.] for him. And according to the text, 'both of them do not know' (19), he is an unenlightened man. And the text, 'How can that person,' etc. concerns the enlightened person distinguished above, becuase of the negation of action (in this text).
तस्मात् विशेषितस्य अविक्रियात्मदर्शिनः विदुषः मुमुक्षोश्च सर्वकर्मसंन्यासे एव अधिकारः । अत एव भगवान् नारायणः साङ्ख्यान् विदुषः अविदुषश्च कर्मिणः प्रविभज्य द्वे निष्ठे ग्राहयति — ‘ज्ञानयोगेन साङ्ख्यानां कर्मयोगेन योगिनाम्’ (भ. गी. ३ । ३) इति ।
tasmāt viśeṣitasya avikriyātmadarśinaḥ viduṣaḥ mumukṣośca sarvakarmasaṃnyāse eva adhikāraḥ | ata eva bhagavān nārāyaṇaḥ sāṅkhyān viduṣaḥ aviduṣaśca karmiṇaḥ pravibhajya dve niṣṭhe grāhayati — ‘jñānayogena sāṅkhyānāṃ karmayogena yoginām’ (bha. gī. 3 | 3) iti |
Therefore, the enlightened person distinguished above, who has realized the immutable Self, and the seeker of Liberation are alified only for renunciation of all rites and duties. Therefore, indeed, the Lord Narayana, making a distinction between the enlightened man of Knowledge and the unenlightened man of rites and duties, makes them take up the two kinds of adherences in the text, 'through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization; through the Yoga of Action for the yogis' (3.3).
तथा च पुत्राय आह भगवान् व्यासः — ‘द्वाविमावथ पन्थानौ’ (शां. २४१ । ६) इत्यादि । तथा च क्रियापथश्चैव पुरस्तात् पश्चात्संन्यासश्चेति ।
tathā ca putrāya āha bhagavān vyāsaḥ — ‘dvāvimāvatha panthānau’ (śāṃ. 241 | 6) ityādi | tathā ca kriyāpathaścaiva purastāt paścātsaṃnyāsaśceti |
Similarly also, Vyasa said to his son, 'Now, there are these two paths,' etc. ['Now, there are these two paths on which the Vedas are based. They are thought of as the dharma characterized by engagement in duties, and that by renunciation of them' (Mbh. Sa. 241.6).-Tr.] So also (there is a Vedic text meaning): 'The path of rites and duties, indeed, is the earlier, and renunciation comes after that.' [Ast. says that this is not a otation, but only gives the purport of Tai, Ar. 10.62.12.-Tr.]
एतमेव विभागं पुनः पुनर्दर्शयिष्यति भगवान् — अतत्त्ववित् ‘अहङ्कारविमूढात्मा कर्ताहमिति मन्यते’ (भ. गी. ३ । २७), तत्त्ववित्तु नाहं करोमि इति । तथा च ‘सर्वकर्माणि मनसा संन्यस्यास्ते’ (भ. गी. ५ । १३) इत्यादि ॥
etameva vibhāgaṃ punaḥ punardarśayiṣyati bhagavān — atattvavit ‘ahaṅkāravimūḍhātmā kartāhamiti manyate’ (bha. gī. 3 | 27), tattvavittu nāhaṃ karomi iti | tathā ca ‘sarvakarmāṇi manasā saṃnyasyāste’ (bha. gī. 5 | 13) ityādi ||
The Lord will show again and again this very division: 'The unenlightened man who is deluded by egoism thinks thus: "I am the doer"; but the one who is a knower of the facts (about the varieties of the gunas) thinks, "I do not act"' (cf. 3.27,28). So also there is the text, '(The embodied man of selfcontrol,) having given up all actions mentally, continues (happily in the town of nine gates)' (5.13) etc.
तत्र केचित्पण्डितंमन्या वदन्ति — ‘जन्मादिषड्भावविक्रियारहितः अविक्रियः अकर्ता एकः अहमात्मा’ इति न कस्यचित् ज्ञानम् उत्पद्यते, यस्मिन् सति सर्वकर्मसंन्यासः उपदिश्यते इति । तन्न ; ‘न जायते’ (भ. गी. २ । २०) इत्यादिशास्त्रोपदेशानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गात् ।
tatra kecitpaṇḍitaṃmanyā vadanti — ‘janmādiṣaḍbhāvavikriyārahitaḥ avikriyaḥ akartā ekaḥ ahamātmā’ iti na kasyacit jñānam utpadyate, yasmin sati sarvakarmasaṃnyāsaḥ upadiśyate iti |
tanna ; ‘na jāyate’ (bha. gī. 2 | 20) ityādiśāstropadeśānarthakyaprasaṅgāt |
With regard to this some wiseacres say: In no person does arise the idea, 'I am the changeless, actionless Self, which is One and devoid of the six kinds of changes beginning with birth to which all things are subject', on the occurrence of which (idea alone) can renunciation of all actions be enjoined.
That is not correct, because it will lead to the needlessness of such scriptural instructions as, 'Never is this One born,' etc. (20).
यथा च शास्त्रोपदेशसामर्थ्यात् धर्माधर्मास्तित्वविज्ञानं कर्तुश्च देहान्तरसम्बन्धविज्ञानमुत्पद्यते, तथा शास्त्रात् तस्यैव आत्मनः अविक्रियत्वाकर्तृत्वैकत्वादिविज्ञानं कस्मात् नोत्पद्यते इति प्रष्टव्याः ते ।
yathā ca śāstropadeśasāmarthyāt dharmādharmāstitvavijñānaṃ kartuśca dehāntarasambandhavijñānamutpadyate, tathā śāstrāt tasyaiva ātmanaḥ avikriyatvākartṛtvaikatvādivijñānaṃ kasmāt notpadyate iti praṣṭavyāḥ te |
They should be asked: As on the authority of scripural instructions there arises the knowledge of the existence of virtue and vice and the knowledge regarding an agent who gets associated with successive bodies, similarly, why should not there arise from the scriptures the knowledge of unchangeability, non-agentship, oneness, etc. of that very Self?
करणागोचरत्वात् इति चेत् ,
न ; ‘मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ४ । १९) इति श्रुतेः ।
karaṇāgocaratvāt iti cet ,
na ; ‘manasaivānudraṣṭavyam’ (bṛ. u. 4 | 4 | 19) iti śruteḥ |
Objection: If it be said that this is due to Its being beyond the scope of any means (of knowledge)?
Vedantin: No, because the Sruti says, 'It is to be realized through the mind alone, (following the instruction of the teacher)' (Br. 4.4.19).
शास्त्राचार्योपदेशशमदमादिसंस्कृतं मनः आत्मदर्शने करणम् । तथा च तदधिगमाय अनुमाने आगमे च सति ज्ञानं नोत्पद्यत इति साहसमात्रमेतत् । ज्ञानं च उत्पद्यमानं तद्विपरीतमज्ञानम् अवश्यं बाधते इत्यभ्युपगन्तव्यम् ।
śāstrācāryopadeśaśamadamādisaṃskṛtaṃ manaḥ ātmadarśane karaṇam | tathā ca tadadhigamāya anumāne āgame ca sati jñānaṃ notpadyata iti sāhasamātrametat | jñānaṃ ca utpadyamānaṃ tadviparītamajñānam avaśyaṃ bādhate ityabhyupagantavyam |
The mind that is purified by the instructions of the scriptures and the teacher, control of the body and organs, etc. becomes the instrument for realizing the Self. Again, since there exist inference and scriptures for Its realization, it is mere bravado to say that Knowledge does not arise. And it has to be granted that when knowledge arises, it surely eliminates ignorance, its opposite.
तच्च अज्ञानं दर्शितम् ‘हन्ता अहम् , हतः अस्मि’ इति ‘उभौ तौ न विजानीतः’ इति । अत्र च आत्मनः हननक्रियायाः कर्तृत्वं कर्मत्वं हेतुकर्तृत्वं च अज्ञानकृतं दर्शितम् ।
tacca ajñānaṃ darśitam ‘hantā aham , hataḥ asmi’ iti ‘ubhau tau na vijānītaḥ’ iti | atra ca ātmanaḥ hananakriyāyāḥ kartṛtvaṃ karmatvaṃ hetukartṛtvaṃ ca ajñānakṛtaṃ darśitam |
And that ignorance has been shown in, 'I am the killer', 'I am killed', and 'both of them do not know' (see 2.19). And here also it is shown that the idea of the Self being an agent, the object of an action, or an indirect agent, is the result of ignorance.
तच्च सर्वक्रियास्वपि समानं कर्तृत्वादेः अविद्याकृतत्वम् , अविक्रियत्वात् आत्मनः । विक्रियावान् हि कर्ता आत्मनः कर्मभूतमन्यं प्रयोजयति ‘कुरु’ इति । तदेतत् अविशेषेण विदुषः सर्वक्रियासु कर्तृत्वं हेतुकर्तृत्वं च प्रतिषेधति भगवान्वासुदेवः विदुषः कर्माधिकाराभावप्रदर्शनार्थम् ‘वेदाविनाशिनं . . . कथं स पुरुषः’ इत्यादिना । क्व पुनः विदुषः अधिकार इति एतदुक्तं पूर्वमेव ‘ज्ञानयोगेन साङ्ख्यानाम्’ (भ. गी. ३ । ३) इति । तथा च सर्वकर्मसंन्यासं वक्ष्यति ‘सर्वकर्माणि मनसा’ (भ. गी. ५ । १३) इत्यादिना ॥
tacca sarvakriyāsvapi samānaṃ kartṛtvādeḥ avidyākṛtatvam , avikriyatvāt ātmanaḥ | vikriyāvān hi kartā ātmanaḥ karmabhūtamanyaṃ prayojayati ‘kuru’ iti | tadetat aviśeṣeṇa viduṣaḥ sarvakriyāsu kartṛtvaṃ hetukartṛtvaṃ ca pratiṣedhati bhagavānvāsudevaḥ viduṣaḥ karmādhikārābhāvapradarśanārtham ‘vedāvināśinaṃ . . . kathaṃ sa puruṣaḥ’ ityādinā | kva punaḥ viduṣaḥ adhikāra iti etaduktaṃ pūrvameva ‘jñānayogena sāṅkhyānām’ (bha. gī. 3 | 3) iti | tathā ca sarvakarmasaṃnyāsaṃ vakṣyati ‘sarvakarmāṇi manasā’ (bha. gī. 5 | 13) ityādinā ||
Also, the Self being changeless, the fact that such agentship etc. are cuased by ignorance is a common factor in all actions without exception, because only that agent who is subject to change instigates someone else who is different from himself and can be acted on, saying, 'Do this.' Thus, with a view to pointing out the absence of fitness for rites and duties in the case of an enlightened person, the Lord [Ast, adds vasudeva after 'Lord'.-Tr.] says, 'He who knows this One as indestructible,' 'how can that person,' etc. thery denying this direct and indirect agentship of an enlightened person in respect of all actions without exception. As regards the question, 'For what, again, is the man of enlightenment alified?', the answer has already been give earlier in, 'through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization' (3.3). Similarly, the Lord will also speak of renunication of all actions in, 'having given up all actions mentally,' etc.(5.13).
ननु मनसा इति वचनात् न वाचिकानां कायिकानां च संन्यासः इति चेत् ,
न ; सर्वकर्माणि इति विशेषितत्वात् ।
nanu manasā iti vacanāt na vācikānāṃ kāyikānāṃ ca saṃnyāsaḥ iti cet ,
na ; sarvakarmāṇi iti viśeṣitatvāt |
Objection: May it not be argued that from the expression, 'mentally', (it follows that) oral and bodily actions are not to be renounced?
Vedantin: No, because of the categoric expression, 'all actions'.
मानसानामेव सर्वकर्मणामिति चेत् ,
न ; मनोव्यापारपूर्वकत्वाद्वाक्कायव्यापाराणां मनोव्यापाराभावे तदनुपपत्तेः ।
mānasānāmeva sarvakarmaṇāmiti cet ,
na ; manovyāpārapūrvakatvādvākkāyavyāpārāṇāṃ manovyāpārābhāve tadanupapatteḥ |
Objection: May it not be argued that 'all actions' relates only to those of the mind?
Vedantin: No, because all oral and bodily actions are preceded by those of the mind, for those actions are impossible in the absence of mental activity.
शास्त्रीयाणां वाक्कायकर्मणां कारणानि मानसानि कर्माणि वर्जयित्वा अन्यानि सर्वकर्माणि मनसा संन्यस्येदिति चेत् ,
न ; ‘नैव कुर्वन्न कारयन्’ (भ. गी. ५ । १३) इति विशेषणात् ।
śāstrīyāṇāṃ vākkāyakarmaṇāṃ kāraṇāni mānasāni karmāṇi varjayitvā anyāni sarvakarmāṇi manasā saṃnyasyediti cet ,
na ; ‘naiva kurvanna kārayan’ (bha. gī. 5 | 13) iti viśeṣaṇāt |
Objection: May it not be said that one has to mentally renounce all other activities except the mental functions which are the causes of scriptural rites and duties performed through speech and body?
Vedantin: No, because it has been specifically expressed: 'without doing or causing (others) to do anything at all' (5.13).
सर्वकर्मसंन्यासः अयं भगवता उक्तः मरिष्यतः न जीवतः इति चेत् ,
न ; ‘नवद्वारे पुरे देही आस्ते’ (भ. गी. ५ । १३) इति विशेषणानुपपत्तेः ।
sarvakarmasaṃnyāsaḥ ayaṃ bhagavatā uktaḥ mariṣyataḥ na jīvataḥ iti cet ,
na ; ‘navadvāre pure dehī āste’ (bha. gī. 5 | 13) iti viśeṣaṇānupapatteḥ |
Objection: May it not be that this renunciation of all actions, as stated by the Lord, is with regard to a dying man, not one living?
Vedantin: No, because (in that case) the specific statement, 'The embodied man continues happily in the town of nine gates' (ibid.) will become illogical since it is not possible for a dead person, who neither acts nor makes others act, [The words 'akurvatah akarayatah, (of him) who neither acts nor makes others act', have been taken as a part of the Commentator's arguement. But A.G. points out that they can also form a part of the next Objection. In that, case, the translation of the Objection will be this: Can it not be that the construction of the sentence (under discussion) is Neither doing nor making others do, he rest by depositing (sannyasya, by renouncing) in the body', but not 'he rests in the body by renouncing৷৷.'?] to rest in that body after renouncing all actions.
न हि सर्वकर्मसंन्यासेन मृतस्य तद्देहे आसनं सम्भवति । अकुर्वतः अकारयतश्च देहे संन्यस्य इति सम्बन्धः न देहे आस्ते इति चेत् ,
न ; सर्वत्र आत्मनः अविक्रियत्वावधारणात् , आसनक्रियायाश्च अधिकरणापेक्षत्वात् , तदनपेक्षत्वाच्च संन्यासस्य । सम्पूर्वस्तु न्यासशब्दः अत्र त्यागार्थः, न निक्षेपार्थः ।
na hi sarvakarmasaṃnyāsena mṛtasya taddehe āsanaṃ sambhavati | akurvataḥ akārayataśca dehe saṃnyasya iti sambandhaḥ na dehe āste iti cet ,
na ; sarvatra ātmanaḥ avikriyatvāvadhāraṇāt , āsanakriyāyāśca adhikaraṇāpekṣatvāt , tadanapekṣatvācca saṃnyāsasya | sampūrvastu nyāsaśabdaḥ atra tyāgārthaḥ, na nikṣepārthaḥ |
Objection: Can it not be that the construction of the sentence (under discussion) is, '(he rests) by depositing (sannyasya, by renouncing) in the body', (but) not 'he rests in the body by renouncing.'?
Vedantin: No, because everywhere it is categorically asserted that the Self is changeless. Besides, the action of 'resting' reires a location, whereas renunciation is independent of this. The word nyasa preceded by sam here means 'renunciation', not 'depositing'.
तस्मात् गीताशास्त्रे आत्मज्ञानवतः संन्यासे एव अधिकारः, न कर्मणि इति तत्र तत्र उपरिष्टात् आत्मज्ञानप्रकरणे दर्शयिष्यामः ॥ २१ ॥
tasmāt gītāśāstre ātmajñānavataḥ saṃnyāse eva adhikāraḥ, na karmaṇi iti tatra tatra upariṣṭāt ātmajñānaprakaraṇe darśayiṣyāmaḥ || 21 ||
Therefore, according to this Scripture, viz the Gita, the man of realization is eligible for renunciation, alone, not for rites and duties. This we shall show in the relevant texts later on in the cotext of the knowledge of the Self.
प्रकृतं तु वक्ष्यामः । तत्र आत्मनः अविनाशित्वं प्रतिज्ञातम् । तत् किमिवेति, उच्यते —
prakṛtaṃ tu vakṣyāmaḥ | tatra ātmanaḥ avināśitvaṃ pratijñātam | tat kimiveti, ucyate —
And now we shall speak of the matter on hand: As to that, the indestructibility [Indestructibility suggests unchangeability as well.] of the Self, has been postulated. What is it like? That is being said in, 'As after rejecting wornout clothes,' etc.
