The self’s nature and the means of knowledge were taught earlier. Since knowledge alone makes action blameworthy when it removes duty, in the next chapter action is enjoined because action is inferior (avara) compared with the supreme knowledge (karman 2.49). If you ask, ‘If so, why then do you engage me in dreadful warfare without permitting withdrawal from duty?’—he answers: if direct discrimination (buddhi) in action were superior, then your view would hold; otherwise (it is as stated).

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

Although knowledge is superior, because of authoritativeness he there says 'You are entitled to action' — meaning 'I shall not prescribe renunciation.' The Lord indicates 'world' (loka) with that intention. There are two kinds of people: those established in knowledge, who by abandoning worldly duties become contemplatives like Sanaka, and those established in action, like Janaka, who practise the path of yoga. 'Knowledge-established' denotes the knowers such as Sanaka; 'yoga-path people' denotes those who adopt the means of yoga like Janaka. Even the knowledge-established, by the Lord's will and for the sake of sustaining the world, become fit for action — they too are among the yogins. 'Nishtha' means steadfastness. 'You, like Janaka, are qualified for knowledge through action' — not like Sanaka by renunciation. There are also those who perform action from a desire to please the Lord — the pious vows and the like — yet they are knowers. Thus it is said that the mastery of action by submission to the Lord's will is part of the teaching.

He says 'I do not prescribe inactivity' because non-initiation of actions such as warfare does not yield desireless inactivity nor liberation achieved by abandoning desirable actions. Knowledge alone is the means to that end, not mere non-action. For why? Because the jiva is always joined to gross or subtle bodies; if liberation came by mere omission of action, then even the inert beings would be liberated. Non-action does not bring liberation because past births have accumulated endless actions. Nor does a single body's rest from action remove those results, for one body performs many actions and each action yields manifold fruits over many births; thus the residue remains as human existence. Hence many-bodied fruits of action are not exhausted. The soul and its manifold embodiments follow a rule: beyond fourteen bodily lives the jiva attains the human body by ordinance; even a woman earns a human body after at least ten births. Beings beyond fourteen are free from worldly bondage. Therefore, O great sage, what hope of liberation is there otherwise? If there were sameness, worldly existence would be due to absence of prior actions. Bondage arises from desire. This will be explained in 'unfavorable and favorable' (18.12). Now, is liberation ascribed to absence of fruit of desireless action? 'Nishkama' here means renunciation of desire following knowledge. 'Nivritti' in this world means turning toward Brahman while still engaged in service, as the tradition holds. Hence even in performing those actions one attains it — therefore he says 'not so.' Sannyāsa is abandonment of desire-driven actions; since 18.2 speaks of desirable actions, the distinction is being made. In the case of desireless actions, purification of the inner instrument by knowledge yields liberation. It is said that from pure sattva and actions arises dispassion in the heart. Only the dispassionate possess knowledge and liberation. Therefore the scripture speaks plainly. The worldly home-life pursued without proper effort is not praise-worthy, but when engaged with devotion it pleases the Lord; thus the ascetic state praised by the Lord brings supreme delight when performed rightly. Hence action in accordance with one's varṇa and āśrama is enjoined.

He says 'Not all actions can be abandoned by the Self'—that is, actions cannot be renounced by the Self alone.

Yet he says 'abandonment by the able is enjoined' — meaning the organs of action should be restrained. 'Mind alone is the agent'—to show this he employs both syntactic connection and distinction: 'remember with the mind, control with the mind.' Karma-yoga is appropriate to one's own varṇa and āśrama. The rule is not 'only household duties' because general statements and the codes on sannyāsa and the like allow broader application.

Yet he says 'abandonment by the able is enjoined' — meaning the organs of action should be restrained. 'Mind alone is the agent'—to show this he employs both syntactic connection and distinction: 'remember with the mind, control with the mind.' Karma-yoga is appropriate to one's own varṇa and āśrama. The rule is not 'only household duties' because general statements and the codes on sannyāsa and the like allow broader application.

Therefore perform prescribed actions suited to your varṇa and āśrama.

The phrase 'action binds the being' is remembered from the Mahābhāṣya: action is remembered as binding. That binding is action which concerns the world. 'Yajña is Vishnu'—actions performed for the sake of yajña, done without attachment, are not binding. 'Detached from attachment' is a qualification: one still may desire certain goals. The scriptures teach distinctions between auspicious and inauspicious actions; therefore not all actions are to be renounced. Special wording preserves specific distinctions.

Here the meaning is explained: 'sahyajña' (the conjoint sacrifice).

Here the meaning is explained: 'sahyajña' (the conjoint sacrifice).

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

He gives another causal statement: ‘From food…’ Yajña is called so from its relation to Parjanya (the rain‑giver); that is its cause. In discussions of earlier sacrifices the entrance of the wheel (cycle) is not declared, because that would concern the method of action, not mere equivalence. Parjanya thinks himself the cloud‑wheel, and rain arises from that yajña. In Agni the first oblation is rightly placed, and from the sun arises rain, from rain food, and from that the beings (Manu 3.76). Both expressions (Agni and Aditya) do not contradict the sea. Hence Parjanya is produced from yajña. Yajña, directed to the deity, is renunciation of possessions; karmas are other actions.

‘Action is born of Brahman’—this is indeed what the śāstras (e.g. Kaushika Upanishad 3.9; Buddhiḥ Jñānam 10.4) teach. When Brahman is taken as primary, ritual formalities by tradition are not to be invented; nor can inert things spontaneously act—this is declared in Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.8–9, and by all authoritative texts that speak of substance, action and time. The power that is beyond thought is stated. The reflected self (jīva’s reflection) acts by virtue of its reflected nature—prohibitions like ‘‘the reflection cannot act’’ (5.14) are thus negatived. The imperishable (akṣara) is known; beyond those is supreme Brahman. Who knows Brahman as beginningless, undecaying, beyond thought and yet full? Without traditional usage and disciplic acceptance one should not claim union with Brahman by mere deliberation; a single word cannot be twofoldly declared without scriptural evidence. The syllables (akṣarāṇi) are eternal—speech appears as eternal through scriptural statements (ṛg, sāmaveda etc.: ‘‘Vāg uṣṛṣṭā…’’; Mahābhāṣya and other texts). Hence eternality is established by śruti, smṛti and the Lord’s sayings. Faults are also declared in agency (Mahābhāṣya 2.13). Things do not arise prior to cognition because that would negate their proof. A sound without sentience indicates suffering, not prior cognition—‘‘he did not desire’’ (Bṛhadāranyaka 1.2.45) and similar passages explain this. Words like īṣṭam, hutam and such, with their manifold senses and great contextual opposition, are explained earlier. Priority is not assigned to a non‑independent creator; dependence is prior as in disease where the person’s nature precedes the disease. Statements of origination are indicative, of deity subjects, and such. The verb of manifestation (abhi‑vyañjaka) and agent verbs are authenticated (Śatapatha). How can the sun, by mere word, be said to create the Vedas? The authority of Scripture as source must be established; if the Vedas created the world, the Vedic creator would be omniscient—if not, Vedas would be only authoritative. Therefore the syllables are eternal. As Brahman is traditionally celebrated as the consecrating power of yajña, it is thereby declared eternal and established in yajña.

Those syllables are the expressive limbs of beings—the wheel. One who does not follow that wheel of the world attains destruction; he becomes short‑lived and is an evil doer, for whose lifespan this very fact is a cause of sin.

Therefore even great mental absorption is not to be performed; hence ‘‘that one is said to be the performer.’’ Pleasure arises from seeing others, companionship, and similar causes. Satisfaction is a cognitive support elsewhere. Contentment is the pleasure that produces satisfaction; contentment is the cause of satisfaction. From the vision of the Supreme Self there is happiness; elsewhere all is dependent on other supports. That great happiness is such that it too depends on other supports—this shows one is satisfied in the Self alone. Thus one stands satisfied in that state. No other cause of contentment is to be assumed. Being satisfied in the Self, one is not dependent on other supports. The usage ‘‘vayam tu na vitṛpyām’’ (in other text) proves this. The course of food is fixed; self‑delight is declared as the view. For the one in nirvitarka samādhi there is no activity; even the sage established in steadiness has bodily actions. ‘‘Yad vā svadharmo me…’’ shows that one’s own duty exists for satisfaction. One may delight in other things at other times; that is not just dependence on other supports—the words differ. The verb ‘kartṛ’ remains valid even on division of time; therefore this refers to nirvikalpa samādhi. Manu’s clarification shows that the samādhi of the wise is called sampragñāta. The delight in Viṣṇu is specially noted: the one whose action is delight in Viṣṇu has no other action.

When it is said, ‘I shall be declared at the time of action,’ after a partial objection, there is no meaning that the doer is superior in self‑delight. Nor is there fault if one omits sandhyā and similar rites. Those rites are not supports for some universal purpose among all beings; the purpose is that by which vision and so on arise—it is a support for that purpose. Even if knowledge alone were to remove all opposition, still for Arjuna both are alike, so it is not fit to teach only actionless knowledge. It may indicate a small fruit of fruitive results—like slaying Vṛtra.

Because in nirvikalpa (asampragñāta) samādhi there is indeed absence of action, therefore perform action.

He says even conduct is action—meaning: one should perform actions along with actions. By action one may attain knowledge, or not; the knowledges of those celebrated (like Bharata) are well known. Here also the capacity of action to lead to knowledge is affirmed—those with discrimination hold this. There is no other path. Other means do not contradict the doorway of knowledge. Where pilgrimage etc. are declared means to liberation, liberation is by Brahma‑knowledge; the pardon associated with bathing at the pilgrimage is praised. Yet sometimes liberation is declared as attainable by mere bathing (Prayāga, Gomati, proximity to Kṛṣṇa, etc.)—there the removal of sins is praised. Even there, however, only Brahma‑knowledge is truly called the means to liberation; otherwise liberation without knowledge is utterly impossible. From places like Prayāga the liberation is indeed said to be via knowledge. Pilgrimage‑praising statements do not overthrow the rule of knowledge; similar to how a king’s servant is praised, yet the king remains supreme. The Lord’s words about pilgrimages and actions may be by way of praise to attract devotees, or to remove ignorance. Liberation is by direct knowledge; action is its instrument.

That means: he who makes the scripture and authoritative statements his proof should act in the manner declared—he remains as stated.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this verse.

The distinction of actions between the wise and the foolish is said to arise from prakriti — from the guṇas, the indriyas, and so on. Those things are guṇa-based and related to prakriti; they are not the actions of a mere reflection.

The knower of the truth understands that the difference in actions and in guṇas: guṇas are qualities present in the indriyas and in objects of the guṇas.

They who are bewildered by the guṇas are deluded with regard to the indriyas. From identification with the indriyas arises attachment to sense-objects. Among guṇas, karmas, and objects, the indriyas, the śabda etc., sattva and other auspicious elements are mentioned, while the apradhāna is not counted among guṇas, as attested by etymology. Thus, accepting sattva and the like as parts of the guṇas accords with the statement about guṇas and guṇa-objects (3.28).

Therefore all actions appear to the jīva as performed by me through the error of identification with prakriti; yet in truth the Lord alone performs all actions by creating and releasing prakriti. Devotional worship consists in regarding the Self as entrusted to Me (mām adhikṛty) — that is the inner spiritual attitude. Sannyāsa (renunciation) is what the Lord enacts. One should not declare 'I do nothing' as non-possessiveness.

He says the fruit is Mine. Even those who have renounced actions are not freed merely by jñāna; direct realization (aparokṣa) — not separation of means — liberates. Deeds of renunciation are meant for the vision of the aparokṣa; but the vision of the aparokṣa itself does not travel any path to liberation. All must be directed inwardly so that means become for liberation. The Narayana-Ashtakshara-Kalpa states that the aparokṣa seer does not undertake anything otherwise for nirvāṇa. Hence the rule of aggregation is rejected.

(Same as 3.31) He says the fruit is Mine. Even renouncers do not become free by mere knowledge; direct realization, not cessation of means, effects liberation. Deeds of renunciation serve to prepare for aparokṣa vision; but the aparokṣa vision itself does not proceed along any path toward moksha. Everything must be inwardly applied so that it serves as means for liberation. The Narayana-Ashtakshara-Kalpa states that the aparokṣa seer has nothing else to undertake for nirvāṇa. Therefore the rule of collecting (of teachings) is rejected.

If one asks 'But will people not fail to follow your view?' he replies: 'They are such.' Prakriti here means former saṁskāra.

Yet restraint is to be effected by strength. From restraint immediate fruition follows even when the motive is absent — this is the import of saying 'by effort' it pertains to the indriya. It is also said that saṁskāra in the strong may be overpowered even by Brahmā and others; nevertheless, by extraordinary effort another course can be enacted.

Still, he calls this fierce war-action superior, saying 'it is better'.

There are many causes of action — anger, desire, and so on. One asks: who, then, is powerful? This question gives rise to the point that internal causes would not come under control (3.34).

That which is the efficacious instigator is desire; anger too is of the same genus, since anger arises from desire (cf. 2.62). Where anger is caused by blaming a guru, even then it is on account of desire to blame — not devotion. Those who say otherwise do not understand subtle distinctions. It has been said in scripture that neither desire nor anger arises from mere wrath. Great appetite (mahā-śana) looks for great objects of enjoyment; it becomes the cause of great crimes such as fratricide, and thus great sin. It opposes all proper aims of life and becomes an enemy.

How can that be hidden by this? Just as fire, though luminous, is hidden by smoke and cannot be clearly seen by others, so too the Supreme Self. As the seer is concealed by impurity and cannot be the cause of others’ manifestation, likewise the inner organ (antahkarana) is not the efficient cause of manifestation from the Supreme; it is veiled by desire. Just as a fetus is bound and covered by the womb, so the jiva is covered by desire.

Even knowledge born from scripture does not manifest the Supreme directly when it is veiled by desire; how much less the scant knowledge of the ignorant. Desire, appearing as desire itself and becoming the persistent enemy, fills one with misery. Desire cannot be satisfied by sensual pleasure. Even if one attains positions like that of Indra, one will again yearn for the state of Brahman—such is the nature of the fire of desire. As declared, ignorance is like smoke over Brahman for the intellect; likewise, the fetter (olba) of the womb covers the seer and the jiva is similarly covered by desire.

The senses are said to be established for the destruction of enemies (i.e., for slaying the foes) for this very reason. When knowledge is overlaid by these sensory objects, the intellect and other faculties are likewise covered by objects. An enemy whose seat has been seized is destroyed.

The senses are said to be established for the destruction of enemies (i.e., for slaying the foes) for this very reason. When knowledge is overlaid by these sensory objects, the intellect and other faculties are likewise covered by objects. An enemy whose seat has been seized is destroyed.

He declares knowledge to be the weapon for slaying enemies. Taking the steel of dispassion and knowledge, one crosses beyond. The body’s senses are superior to the life-principles. Not only through mere scriptural statements about the supreme unmanifest can one attain Him, for the Vedic declaration states that even the unmanifest is known through the personal Lord. Liberation is not attained merely by knowledge of a single locale of declaration. The Lord’s universal withdrawal of the modes (guna‑upasana) is, as taught by the Lord, connected with bliss and so forth belonging to the supreme. Likewise, in the various impersonal Vedas and those dedicated to Vishnu, wherever the modes are declared and where traditions exist, by knowing the Lord there one attains Him; liberation arises only for them and not otherwise, as Garuda says. Hence the unmanifest too is to be known as supreme. The jiva does not desist upon seeing a higher taste, as said: ‘having not known the supreme, from Me is victory for desire’—therefore, here Supreme‑Knowledge alone is indicated. The self is known by mind, and the self by intellect.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.