Chapter 18 - Verse 3

Some philosophers, following the doctrine of the Sāṅkhyas, etc., declare that all action should be given up as an evil, even by those who are fit for Karma-Yoga. As an evil: this may be interpreted to mean either that all Karma should be given up as involving evil since it is the cause of bondage; or that it should be given up like passion and other such evil tendencies. With regard to the same class of persons (viz., those who are fit for Karma-Yoga), others say that the acts of sacrifice, gift and austerity ought not to be abandoned.

It is the Karma-Yogins that form the subject of discussion here; and it is with reference to them that these divergent views are held, but not with reference to the jnana-nishthas (wisdom-devotees), the samnyasins who have risen (above all worldly concerns). Those persons who have been raised above the path of Karma in iii. 3 are not spoken of in this connection.

(Objection):—Just as the persons who are qualified for works form the subject of discussion here—in the section where the whole doctrine of the sastra is summed up,—though their path has already been specified in iii. 3. so also the Sāṅkhyas, the devotees of wisdom, may also form the subject of discussion here.

(Answer):—No, because of the inconceivability of their abandoning of duty from delusion or on account of pain. (To explain): The Sāṅkhyas (men of knowledge) perceive in the Self no pain whatever arising from bodily trouble, since desire, pain, etc., are said to be the attributes of Kṣetra or matter. Wherefore they do not abandon action for fear of bodily trouble and pain. Neither do they perceive action in the Self. If they could ever perceive action in the Self, then it would be possible to imagine their abandoning of obligatory works from delusion. In fact, they abandon works because they see that action pertains to gunas and think ‘I do nothing at all’ (v. 8). How those men who know the truth renounce works has been described in v. 13. etc. Therefore it is only the other class of persons who are ignorant of the true nature of the Self and are qualified for works, and in whose case the supposition of the abandoning of duty from delusion or for fear of bodily trouble is possible,—it is only these that are censured as Tamasic and Rajasic relinquishers (tyagins) in order to praise the abandoning of the fruits of action resorted to by the followers of works who do not know the Self. And the samnyasin proper has been distinguished by the Lord, when defining the man who has transcended gunas—as one “renouncing all undertakings…who is silent, content with anything, homeless, steady-minded…..” (xii. 16—18). And the Lord will hereafter describe (his devotion) as “that supreme consummation of knowledge” (xviii 50) Thus, it is not the samnyasins, who are the devotees of wisdom, that are referred to here. It is only the abandoning of the fruits of works that, by reason of its being Sattvic, is spoken of as samnyasa in contradistinction to the Tamasic and Rajasic (abandoning of works); but not samnyasa proper, that pre-eminent renunciation of all works.

(Objection) :—Since xviii. 11 states the reason why renunciation of all action is an impossibility, it is only the samnyasa proper that is spoken of in this connection.

(Answer) :—No, because the passage referred to as a statement of the reason is only intended to praise (something else enjoined). Just as the passage “on abandonment of peace closely follows” (xii, 12) is only a praise of the abandonment of the fruits of works, since it is addressed to Arjuna who is ignorant of the Self and who could not therefore follow the several paths previously spoken of, so also, the passage here referred to goes to praise the abandonment of the fruits of action. It is not possible for any one to point out an exception to the proposition. “Renouncing all actions by thought, and self-controlled, the embodied one rests happily in the nine-gated city, neither at all acting nor causing to act.” (v. 13). Wherefore these alternative views regarding samnyasa and tyaga concern those persons only for whom works are intended. On the other hand, the Sāṅkhyas, those who see the Supreme Reality, have only to follow the path of knowledge, accompanied with the renunciation of all works; and they have nothing else to do, and do not therefore form the subject of the alternative views set forth here. And so we established this proposition while commenting on ii. 21 and at the commencement of the third discourse.