SrI: SrImathE SatakOpAya nama: SrImathE rAmAnujAya nama: SrImath varavaramunayE nama:
aniṣṭam iṣṭaṁ miśraṁ ca
tri-vidhaṁ karmaṇaḥ phalam
bhavaty atyāgināṁ pretya
na tu sannyāsināṁ kvacit
‘Threefold is the fruit of work: good, evil, and mixed, which befals, after death, to the non-renouncers, but never to the renouncers.’
Evil (or undesirable) fruit is hades[1. The Infernum: Places where sins have to be atoned for by suffering.] (naraka) etc. Good (or desirable) fruit is heaven (svarga) etc. Mixed is that which is related to evil, such as sons, cattle, food etc. These fruits befal to him only, after death, who does not renounce (=a-tyāgi) viz., the three kinds of renouncement, (1) of fruit, (2) of attachment, and (3) of authorship (or agentship).
Pretya = (Lit): After death. It means, subsequent to the performance of an act:[2. Rāmānuja comments thus on the word ‘pretya’ keeping in view that there are some fruits like getting a son etc., which a man reaps, as a result of his work, before death.]
Never do such fruits, evil etc., inimical to Moksha, fall to the lot of renouncers (=sannyāsinām) of authorship etc.
The gist is this:— No doubt, Agnihotra etc., are nitya-acts; i.e., obligatory acts for one, by the fact of his birth (in a certain varṇa, in a certain society, nation, country etc)., and for one who has in view the achieving of fruits therefor (kāmya). How the same one act (i.e., Agnihotra etc)., finds a different application in each case (in the case of fruit-seeker, giving fruit, and in the case of Moksha-seeker, not giving fruit) finds justification by the canons of ‘Variety of Application’.[3. This is called the ‘viniyoga-pṛithaktva-nyāya’ (vide: Pūrva Mīmāmsa; Su: IV-3-3.5-And Śrī Bhashya (Telugu: Edn: p: 724).] Its application or employment in the case of Moksha, is seen in such Texts as:
‘By study of the Vedas, by Yajñas, by Dānas, by Tapas, observance of fasts, do the Brāhmaṇas try to know Him.’[4. Bṛ: Up°: VI-4-22, etc., this imploying, as Vedāntācharya explains that works lead to contemplation and by contemplation, God is known, so that works indirectly help to God being known. Hence works are necessary.]
Hence sannyāsa that the Śāstras proclaim is no other than tyāga, both meaning renunciation of agentship etc., while acts are being necessarily performed. Renunciation doth not therefore mean the total abandonment of acts themselves (in other words entire cessation from work).[5. The argument started by the Lord in Stanza 2 ante,- is thus closed by his verdict that Tyāga and Sannyāsa are identical.]
Now, the manner how one may disown for himself authorship of his acts by assigning authorship to Bhagavān, Purushottama, the Inner Guide, is pointed out. From this kind of reflection, it is a necessary corollary that all self-ness (or personality=mamatā), as regards a work having been performed by him or as regards fruit thereof, is completely resigned. For the case would stand to him thus: ‘Verily it is Parama-purusha, that is the Motor of all acts, —which He performs by His own (instrument) jīvātma (soul), by His own (sub-instrument of) body and members of it and the Prāṇas (therein), —to subserve His own Purposes of Pleasure.[6. Pleasure etc., (līlādi is a lect: vari:) Then the Purpose is Pleasure as well as the salvation of creatures; says Vedāntāchārya (vide Tāt: Chand).] Hence even the gratification, such as getting one’s appetite appeased, and all work which such nature’s demands necessitates, all belong to Him (not me).’[7. This is ‘directing the Intention to God alone.’ P: 244: Thomas ā Kempis’s Imitation of Christ.]
archived in http://githa.koyil.org