न हि देहभृता शक्यं त्यक्तुं कर्माण्यशेषतः।
यस्तु कर्मफलत्यागी स त्यागीत्यभिधीयते।।18.11।।
।।18.11।।कारण कि देहधारी मनुष्यके द्वारा सम्पूर्ण कर्मोंका त्याग करना सम्भव नहीं है। इसलिये जो कर्मफलका त्यागी है? वही त्यागी है -- ऐसा कहा जाता है।
।।18.11।। क्योंकि देहधारी पुरुष के द्वारा अशेष कर्मों का त्याग संभव नहीं है? इसलिए जो कर्मफल त्यागी है? वही पुरुष त्यागी कहा जाता है।।
।।18.11।। व्याख्या -- न हि देहभृता (टिप्पणी प0 879.1) शक्यं त्यक्तुं कर्माण्यशेषतः -- देहधारी अर्थात् देहके साथ तादात्म्य रखनेवाले मनुष्योंके द्वारा कर्मोंका सर्वथा त्याग होना सम्भव नहीं है क्योंकि शरीर प्रकृतिका कार्य है और प्रकृति स्वतः क्रियाशील है। अतः शरीरके साथ तादात्म्य (एकता) रखनेवाला क्रियासे रहित कैसे हो सकता है हाँ? यह हो सकता है कि मनुष्य यज्ञ? दान? तप? तीर्थ आदि कर्मोंको छोड़ दे परन्तु वह खानापीना? चलनाफिरना? आनाजाना? उठनाबैठना? सोनाजागना आदि आवश्यक शारीरिक क्रियाओंको कैसे छोड़ सकता हैदूसरी बात? भीतरसे कर्मोंका सम्बन्ध छोड़ना ही वास्तवमें छोड़ना है। बाहरसे सम्बन्ध नहीं छोड़ा जा सकता। यदि बाहरसे सम्बन्ध छोड़ भी दिया जाय तो वह कबतक छूटा रहेगा जैसे कोई समाधि लगा ले तो उस समय बाहरकी क्रियाओंका सम्बन्ध छूट जाता है। परन्तु समाधि भी एक क्रिया है? एक कर्म है क्योंकि इसमें प्रकृतिजन्य कारणशरीरका सम्बन्ध रहता है। इसलिये समाधिसे भी व्युत्थान होता है।कोई भी देहधारी मनुष्य कर्मोंका स्वरूपसे सम्बन्धविच्छेद नहीं कर सकता (गीता 3। 5)। कर्मोंका आरम्भ किये बिना? निष्कर्मता (योगनिष्ठा) प्राप्त नहीं होती और कर्मोंका त्याग करनेमात्रसे सिद्धि (सांख्यनिष्ठा) भी प्राप्त नहीं होती (गीता 3। 4)।मार्मिक बातपुरुष (चेतन) सदा निर्विकार और एकरस रहनेवाला है परन्तु प्रकृति विकारी और सदा परिवर्तनशील है। जिसमें अच्छी रीतिसे क्रियाशीलता हो? उसको प्रकृति कहते हैं -- प्रकर्षेण करणं (भावे ल्युट्) इति प्रकृतिः।उस प्रकृतिके कार्य शरीरके साथ जबतक पुरुष अपना सम्बन्ध (तादात्म्य) मानता रहेगा? तबतक वह कर्मोंका सर्वथा त्याग कर ही नहीं सकता। कारण कि शरीरमें अहंताममता होनेके कारण मनुष्य शरीरसे होनेवाली प्रत्येक क्रियाको अपनी क्रिया मानता है? इसलिये वह कभी किसी अवस्थामें भी क्रियारहित नहीं हो सकता।दूसरी बात? केवल पुरुषने ही प्रकृतिके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध जोड़ा है। प्रकृतिने पुरुषके साथ सम्बन्ध नहीं जोड़ा है। जहाँ विवेक रहता है? वहाँ पुरुषने विवेककी उपेक्षा करके प्रकृतिसे सम्बन्धकी सद्भावना कर ली अर्थात् सम्बन्धको सत्य मान लिया। सम्बन्धको सत्य माननेसे ही बन्धन हुआ है। वह सम्बन्ध दो तरहका होता है -- अपनेको शरीर मानना और शरीरको अपना मानना। अपनेको शरीर माननेसे अहंता और शरीरको अपना माननेसे ममता होती है। इस अहंताममतारूप सम्बन्धका घनिष्ठ होना ही देहधारीका स्वरूप है। ऐसा देहधारी मनुष्य कर्मोंको सर्वथा नहीं छोड़ सकता।यस्तु (टिप्पणी प0 879.2) कर्मफलत्यागी स त्यागीत्यभिधीयते -- जो किसी भी कर्म और फलके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध नहीं रखता? वही त्यागी है। जबतक मनुष्य कुशलअकुशलके साथ? अच्छेमन्देके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध रखता है? तबतक वह त्यागी नहीं है।यह पुरुष जिस प्राकृत क्रिया और पदार्थको अपना मानता है? उसमें उसकी प्रियता हो जाती है। उसी,प्रियताका नाम है -- आसक्ति। यह आसक्ति ही वर्तमानके कर्मोंको लेकर कर्मासक्ति और भविष्यमें मिलनेवाले फलकी इच्छाको लेकर फलासक्ति कहलाती है। जब मनुष्य फलत्यागका उद्देश्य बना लेता है? तब उसके सब कर्म संसारके हितके लिये होने लगते हैं? अपने लिये नहीं। कारण कि उसको यह बात अच्छी तरहसे समझमें आ जाती है कि कर्म करनेकी सबकीसब सामग्री संसारसे मिली है और संसारकी ही है? अपनी नहीं। इन कर्मोंका भी आदि और अन्त होता है तथा उनका फल भी उत्पन्न और नष्ट होनेवाला होता है परन्तु स्वयं सदा निर्विकार रहता है न उत्पन्न होता है? न नष्ट होता है और न कभी विकृत ही होता है। ऐसा विवेक होनेपर फलेच्छाका त्याग सुगमतासे हो जाता है। फलका त्याग करनेमें उस विवेककी मनुष्यमें कभी अभिमान भी नहीं आता क्योंकि कर्म और उसका फल -- दोनों ही अपनेसे प्रतिक्षण वियुक्त हो रहे हैं अतः उनके साथ हमारा सम्बन्ध वास्तवमें है ही कहाँ इसीलिये भगवान् कहते हैं कि जो कर्मफलका त्यागी है? वही त्यागी कहा जाता है।निर्विकारका विकारी कर्मफलके साथ सम्बन्ध कभी था नहीं? है नहीं? हो सकता नहीं और होनेकी सम्भावना भी नहीं है। केवल अविवेकके कारण सम्बन्ध माना हुआ था। उस अविवेकके मिटनेसे मनुष्यकी अभिधा अर्थात् उसका नाम त्यागी हो जाता है -- स त्यागीत्यभिधीयते। माने हुए सम्बन्धके विषयमें दृष्टान्तरूपसे एक बात कही जाती है। एक व्यक्ति घरपरिवारको छोड़कर सच्चे हृदयसे साधुसंन्यासी हो जाता है तो उसके बाद घरवालोंकी कितनी ही उन्नति अथवा अवनति हो जाय अथवा सबकेसब मर जायँ? उनका नामोनिशान भी न रहे? तो भी उसपर कोई असर नहीं पड़ता। इसमें विचार करें कि उस व्यक्तिका परिवारके साथ जो सम्बन्ध था? वह दोनों तरफसे माना हुआ था अर्थात् वह परिवारको अपना मानता था और परिवार उसको अपना मानता था। परन्तु पुरुष और प्रकृतिका सम्बन्ध केवल पुरुषकी तरफसे माना हुआ है? प्रकृतिकी तरफसे माना हुआ नहीं जब दोनों तरफसे माना हुआ (व्यक्ति और परिवारका) सम्बन्ध भी एक तरफसे छोड़नेपर छूट जाता है? तब केवल एक तरफसे माना हुआ (पुरुष और प्रकृतिका) सम्बन्ध छोड़नेपर छूट जाय? इसमें कहना ही क्या है सम्बन्ध -- पूर्वश्लोकमें कहा गया कि कर्मफलका त्याग करनेवाला ही वास्तवमें त्यागी है। अगर मनुष्य कर्मफलका त्याग न करे तो क्या होता है -- इसे आगेके श्लोकमें बताते हैं।
।।18.11।। कोई भी देहधारी जीवित प्राणी चाहे वह एक कोषीय जीव ही क्यों न हो समस्त कर्मों का त्याग नहीं कर सकता। कर्म तो जीवन का प्रतीक या लक्षण है। कर्म ही जीवनरूपी पुष्प की सुगन्ध है जहाँ कर्म नहीं है? वहाँ जीवन समाप्त समझा जाता है। कुछ कर्म किये बिना रहना भी अपने आप में एक कर्म ही है। शारीरिक और मानसिक क्रियाएं मरण पर्यन्त होती ही रहती हैं।अत हम देहधारियों को कर्म करने चाहिए या नहीं? ऐसा विकल्प ही संभव नहीं होता। परन्तु हमको कौन से कर्म और किस प्रकार उन्हें करना चाहिए? इस विषय में अवश्य ही विकल्प संभव है। गीता के उपदेशानुसार हमको अपने कर्तव्य कर्म ईश्वरार्पण की भावना से करने चाहिए।अज्ञानी जन देहादि अनात्म उपाधियों को ही अपना स्वरूप समझकर उसमें आसक्त होते हैं तथा उनके कर्मों का कर्ता भी स्वयं को ही मानते हैं। अत ऐसे लोग सात्त्विक त्याग नहीं कर पाते हैं। भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण का ऐसे लोगों को यह उपदेश है कि उनको कमसेकम कर्मफलों की आसक्ति त्याग कर कर्मों का आचरण परिश्रम? उत्साह एवं कुशलता के साथ करना चाहिए। कर्मफलत्यागी पुरुष ही वास्तव में त्यागी है? न कि कर्मों को त्यागने वाला व्यक्ति।इस त्याग का क्या प्रयोजन है सुनो
18.11 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.
18.11 Verily, it is not possible for an embodied being to abandon actions entirely; but he who relinishes the rewards of actions is verily called a man of renunciation.
18.11. Indeed, to relinish actions entirely is not possible for a body-bearing one; but whosoever relinishes the fruits of actions, he is said to be a man of [true] relinishment.
18.11 न not? हि verily? देहभृता by an embodied being? शक्यम् possible? त्यक्तुम् to abandon? कर्माणि actions? अशेषतः entirely? यः who? तु but? कर्मफलत्यागी relinisher of the fruits of actions? सः he? त्यागी relinisher? इति thus? अभिधीयते is called.Commentary He who has assumed a human body and yet grumbles at having to perform actions is verily a fool. Can fire that is endowed with heat as its natural property ever think of getting rid of it So long as you are living in this body you cannot entirely relinish action. Lord Krishna says to Arjuna Nor can anyone? even for an instant remain actionless for helplessly is everyone driven to action by the alities born of Nature (Cf.III.5). Nature (and your own nature? too) will urge you to do actions. You will have to abandon the idea of agency and the fruits of actions. Then you are ite safe. No action will bind you.The ignorant man who identifies himself with the body and who thinks that he is himself the doer of all actions should not abandon actions. It is impossible for him to relinish actions. He will have to perform all the prescribed duties while relinishing their fruits.Dehabhrita A wearer of the body An embodied being? i.e.? he who identifies himself with the body. A man who has discrimination between the Real and the unreal? the Eternal and the transient? cannot be called a bodywearer? because he does not think that he is the doer of actions -- vide chapter II.21 (He who knows Him Who is indestructible? eternal? unborn? undiminishing -- how can that man slay? O Arjuna? or cause to be slain).When the ignorant man who is alified for action does the prescribed duties? relinishing the desire for the fruits of his actions? he is called a Tyagi? although he is active. This title Tyagi is given to him for the sake of courtesy.The relinishment of all actions is possible only for him who has attained Selfrealisation and who is? therefore? not a wearer of the body? i.e.? does not hink that the body is the Self. (Cf.III.5)
18.11 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-indentification 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 indestructible৷৷. 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, relinishes 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:
18.4-11 Niscayam etc. upto abhidhiyate. The conclusion here is this : Due to the manifoldness of the nature of the Strands, that have been defined earlier, the act of relinishment itself is performed with a certain mental disposition which is a modification of the Sattva, the Rajas and the Tamas (the Strands). Because it reflects (is contaminated by) the nature of the person having the same (the said mental dispositon), what is called the real (unalloyed) relinishment is the performance of the actions by the knowers of the Supreme Brahman by giving up desire to achieve fruits and by avoiding the craving and hatred on account of their eanimity to [the pairs of opposites like] success and failure etc. That is why [the Bhagavat] says : By the act of relinishment born of the Rajas or of the Tamas (Strands), no connection with the fruit [of relinishment] is attained. However, for an act of relinishing, born of the Sattva (Strand), there is the fruit in the form of honouring the purport of the scriptures. The application of the term relinishment stands to reason, in fact, only in the case of a sage who has relinished his holding on the multitude of the Strands.
18.11 It is impossible for one who has a body and has to nourish it. to abandon action entirely; for eating, drinking etc., reired for nourshing the body and other acts connected therewith are unavoidable. And for the same reason the five great sacrifices etc., are also indispensable. He who has given up the fruits of the five great sacrifices, is said to have renounced; this is referred to in the Srutis such as: Only through renunciation do some obtain immortality (Ma. Na., 8.14). Renunciation of fruits of actions is illustrative; it implies much more. It implies one who has renounced the fruits, agency and attachment to works, as the topic has been begun with the declaration: For abandonment (Tyaga) is declard to be of three kinds (18.4). This statement may be estioned in the following manner: Agnihotra, the full moon and new moon sacrifices, Jyotistoma etc., and also the five great sacrifices are enjoined by the Sastras only for the attainment of their results like heaven. They are not purposeless. Even the injunction with regard to obligatory and occasional ceremonies is enjoined because they yield results, as implied in the following passage: For householders, Prajapatya ceremony (V.P., 1.6.37). Therefore, as the performance of actions has to be understood as a means for attaining their respective results, the accruing of agreeable and disagreeable results is inevitable, even though they are performed without any desire for fruits, just as a seed sown must grow into a tree and bear fruit. Hence, actions ought not to be performed by an aspirant for release, because the results are incompatible with release. Sri Krsna answers such objections:
Therefore, actions ordained by scripture should not be given up. It is not possible for one with a body to give up activities. Sakyam is used for the proper word sakyani. The Lord has already said that not for a moment can the person remain without doing action: na hi kascit ksanam api jatu tisthaty akarma-krd iti. (BG 3.5)
It may be postulated that better than renunciation of the rewards of actions, it is better to simply renounce all actions; for then there is no distraction from meditation and contemplation and one can unhindered attain the joy of a stable, steadfast state of consciousness. In anticipation of this Lord Krishna explains the reality that no living entity can completely stop all actions entirely. No one ever remains inactive even for a moment as the heart is beating, the lungs are breathing, the pulse is pulsing, the eyes are blinking, the mind is reflecting, etc. etc. Therefore renouncing the desire for rewards is true renunciation.
Lord Krishna explains that since it is impossible for any living entity to completely renounce actions entirely it is clear that renunciation of the desire for rewards of actions and all ego sense as the doer of actions is actual renunciation and not the mere cessation of activities.
It should be clearly understood that whether confined to a physical body or a subtle body it is virtually impossible to entirely give up all action completely. In the physical body the heart is beating, the lungs are breathing, water must be drunk, some form of nourishment must be ingested. If it is a subtle body then sunshine must be absorbed or prana or energy must be assimilated. These things are indispensable for life in a physical or subtle body. Thus while residing in a physical body the observance of prescribed Vedic activities are essential and must be performed. It is the renouncing of desires for the rewards of actions that is factual renunciation and not the mere abandoning of activities. Such renunciation also includes idea of authorship and the bane of attachment. It may be argued that prescribed Vedic activities have rewards automatically associated with them such as entry to Svarga the heavenly planets so by such inseparable relationships they are clear incentives. This is also applicable to the merits accrued from nitya or daily duties and naimittika or occasional duties as well. These actions can be compared to planting a mango tree and the fruits can be considered the rewards thereof. But motivation for the rewards of actions opposed to bhakti or exclusive loving devotion to Lord Krishna and is inimical to moksa or liberation from material existence. Verily this is true. So all rewards whether or not desirable or undesirable must be renounced as only activities performed without motive and hankering for rewards are to be enacted and this is actual renunciation.
It should be clearly understood that whether confined to a physical body or a subtle body it is virtually impossible to entirely give up all action completely. In the physical body the heart is beating, the lungs are breathing, water must be drunk, some form of nourishment must be ingested. If it is a subtle body then sunshine must be absorbed or prana or energy must be assimilated. These things are indispensable for life in a physical or subtle body. Thus while residing in a physical body the observance of prescribed Vedic activities are essential and must be performed. It is the renouncing of desires for the rewards of actions that is factual renunciation and not the mere abandoning of activities. Such renunciation also includes idea of authorship and the bane of attachment. It may be argued that prescribed Vedic activities have rewards automatically associated with them such as entry to Svarga the heavenly planets so by such inseparable relationships they are clear incentives. This is also applicable to the merits accrued from nitya or daily duties and naimittika or occasional duties as well. These actions can be compared to planting a mango tree and the fruits can be considered the rewards thereof. But motivation for the rewards of actions opposed to bhakti or exclusive loving devotion to Lord Krishna and is inimical to moksa or liberation from material existence. Verily this is true. So all rewards whether or not desirable or undesirable must be renounced as only activities performed without motive and hankering for rewards are to be enacted and this is actual renunciation.
Na hi dehabhritaa shakyam tyaktum karmaanyasheshatah; Yastu karmaphalatyaagi sa tyaageetyabhidheeyate.
na—not; hi—indeed; deha-bhṛitā—for the embodied being; śhakyam—possible; tyaktum—to give up; karmāṇi—activities; aśheṣhataḥ—entirely; yaḥ—who; tu—but; karma-phala—fruits of actions; tyāgī—one who renounces all desires for enjoying the fruits of actions; saḥ—they; tyāgī—one who renounces all desires for enjoying the fruits of actions; iti—as; abhidhīyate—are said
