SLOGAM

Slogam 1
Slogam 2
Slogam 3
Slogam 4
Slogam 5
Slogam 6
Slogam 7
Slogam 8
Slogam 9
Slogam 10
Slogam 11
Slogam 12
Slogam 13
Slogam 14
Slogam 15
Slogam 16
Slogam 17
Slogam 18
Slogam 19
Slogam 20
Slogam 21
Slogam 22
Slogam 23
Slogam 24
Slogam 25
Slogam 26
Slogam 27
Slogam 28
Slogam 29
Slogam 30
Slogam 31
Slogam 32
Slogam 33
Slogam 34
Slogam 35
Slogam 36
Slogam 37
Slogam 38
Slogam 39
Slogam 40
Slogam 41
Slogam 42

Bhagavad Gita Chapter 18.3

tyājyaḿ doṣa-vad ity eke

karma prāhur manīṣiṇaḥ

yajña-dāna-tapaḥ-karma

na tyājyam iti cāpare

Translation

Some learned men declare that all kinds of fruitive activities should be given up as faulty, yet other sages maintain that acts of sacrifice, charity and penance should never be abandoned.

Author Name:-Sri Ramanuja

Purport

Sri Ramanuja

18.3 Some sages, viz., the adherents of Kapila and those Vaidikas who agree with his creed, contend that all acts such as sacrifices etc., should be renounced by aspirants for release, as they bind even as desires and other similar defects tend to bind. Other learned men say that acts like sacrifices etc., should not be renounced.

Author Name:-Sri Adi Shankaracharya

Purport

Sri Adi Shankaracharya

18.3 Eke, some; manisinah, learned ones, subscribing to the views of the Sankhyas and others; prahuh, say; that dosavat, beset with evil (as it is);-What is it?- karma, action, all actions, becuase they are the cause of bondage; tyajyam, should be given up even by those who are eligible for actions (rites and duties). Or, it (action) is to be given up dosavat, just as defects such as attachment etc. are renounced. Ca and, in that very context; apare, others; (say) that yajana-dana-tapah-karma, the practice of sacrifice, charity and auterity; na tyajyam, should not be given up. These alternatives are with regard to only those who are 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 unelightened about the Self, and for whom renunciation is possible out of delusion and from fear of physical trouble, are alone condemned as persons who, being possessed of tamas and rajas, resort to renunciation. And this is done with a veiw to eulogizing the renunciation of the results of rites and duties by the unenlightened men of action. Besides, the men of renunciation in the real sense have been particularly pointed out in, ‘who has renounced ever undertaking,’ ‘who is silent, content with anything, homeless, steadyminded’ (12.16, 19), and also (while determining) the characteristics of one who has transcended the gunas (Chapter 14). The Lord will further say, ‘…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 veiws 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 veiws. 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.

Author Name:-Sri Madhvacharya

Purport

Sri Madhvacharya

The word manisinah refers to the scholars of the sankhya or analytical school of thought who propound that renunciation is the abandonment of unrighteous actions due to possessing defects such as promoting desires or instigating violence. While others denoted by the words apare ca maintain the understanding that only the abandonment of the desire for rewards is renunciation. Both opinions have relevance and both opinions have been accepted as reasonable.

Now begins the summation.

Having referred to them as manisinah it is not appropriate to minimise their views but if inferior they should be given up. Thus a breach of etiquette is averted. The purport is to abandon actions with desires for rewards and all attachment to them. In the next verse Lord Krishna gives His absolute conclusion on this subject.

SLOGAM

CATEGORIES

Slogam 3

Bhagavad Gita Chapter 18.3

Related to Veda :