Mahabharata Bhishma Parva Chapter 42

Prev.png
Mahabharata Bhishma Parva (Bhagavat-Gita Parva) Chapter 42
Bhagavad Gita Chapter XVIII


Arjuna said, 'Of renunciation, O thou of mighty arms, I desire to know the true nature, and also of abandonment, O lord of the senses distinctly, O slayer of Kesi[1]

The Holy One said, 'The rejection of the works with desire is known by the learned as renunciation. The abandonment of the fruit of all work, the discerning call abandonment. Some wise men say that work (itself) should be abandoned as evil; others (say) that the works of sacrifice, gifts, and penance, should not be abandoned. As to that abandonment, listen to my decision, O best of the sons of Bharata, for abandonment, O tiger among men, hath been declared to be of three kinds.

The works of sacrifice, gifts, and penance should not be abandoned. They should, indeed, be done. Sacrifice, gift, and penance, are the purifications of the wise. But even those works should be done, abandoning attachment and fruit. This, O son of Pritha, is my excellent and decided opinion. The renunciation of an act prescribed (in the scriptures) is not proper. Its abandonment (is) from delusion, (and) is (therefore,) declared to be of the quality of darkness.[2] (Regarding it) as (a source of) sorrow, when work is abandoned from (fear of) bodily pain, one making such an abandonment which is of the quality of passion never obtaineth the fruit of abandonment. (Regarding it) as one that should be done, when[3] work that is prescribed (in the scriptures) is done, O Arjuna, abandoning attachment and fruit also, that abandonment is deemed to be of the quality of goodness. Possessed of intelligence and with doubts dispelled, an abandoner that is endowed with the quality of goodness hath no aversion for an unpleasant action and no attachment to pleasant (ones).[4] Since actions cannot be absolutely abandoned by an embodied person, (therefore) he who abandons the fruit of actions is truly said to be an abandoner. Evil, good and mixed-action hath (this) three-fold fruit hereafter for those that do not abandon. But there is none whatever for the renouncer.[5] Listen from me, O thou of mighty arms, to those five causes for the completion of all actions, declared in the Sankhya treating of the annihilation of actions.[6] (They are) substratum, agent, the diverse kinds of organs, the diverse efforts severally, and with them the deities as the fifth.[7] With body, speech, or mind, whatever work, just or the reverse, a man undertakes, these five are its causes. That being so, he that, owing to an unrefined understanding, beholdeth his own self as solely the agent, he, dull in mind, beholdeth not. He that hath no feeling of egoism, whose mind is not sullied, he, even killing all these people, killeth not, nor is fettered (by action).[8]—Knowledge, the object of knowledge, and the knower, form the three-fold impulse of action. Instrument, action, and the agent, form the three-fold complement of action.[9] Knowledge, action, and agent, are declared in the enumeration of qualities to be three-fold, according to the difference of qualities. Listen to those also duly.[10] That by which One Eternal Essence is viewed in all things, undivided in the divided, know that to be knowledge having the quality of goodness.

Next.png

References

  1. ↑ Sanyasa I render Renunciation. K. T. Telang does the same. Mr. Davies renders it "abstention." So 'Tyaga' I render "abandonment." Mr. Davies renders it "renunciation." What the two words, however, mean is explained fully in the verses that follow.
  2. ↑ Both Sankara and Sreedhara explain the second line consisting of two propositions, the connecting verb bhavet being understood
  3. ↑ I have used "when" for "whatever" to make the sentence grammatical.
  4. ↑ Davies, giving the sense correctly, does not follow the true order of the subject and the predicate. Following Lassen, he renders kusala and akusala as "prosperous" and "unprosperous;" for medhabi K. T. Telang has rendered "talented" which has not the sanction of good usage.
  5. ↑ That is, as Sreedhara explains, one who hath renounced the fruit of actions.
  6. ↑ Kritante Sankara takes it as an adjective of Sankhye and thinks that the reference is to the Vedanta. Sreedhara also seems to be of the same opinion.
  7. ↑ The substratum is the body. The agent is the person that thinks himself to be the actor. The organs are those of perception etc. The efforts are the actions of the vital winds—Prana, etc. The deities are those that preside over the eye and the other senses. The deities have no place in Kapila's system. Hence, if it is not the Vedanta, some system materially based upon Kapila's and recognising the interference of the deities, seems to be indicated. Atra is explained by Sreedhara as equivalent to "among" or "with these." I think, however, it means, "are here", i.e., are enumerated here, or, in this connection.
  8. ↑ Hath no feeling of egoism, i.e., doth not regard himself as the doer, sullied, i.e., by the taint of desire of fruit.
  9. ↑ Mr. Davies, I think, is right in rendering Samgrahas as "complement." K. T. Telang renders it as equivalent to "in brief."
  10. ↑ In the enunciation of qualities i.e., in the Sankhya system.