In plain words
Free from expectation, with mind and self restrained, having abandoned all possessions, one incurs no fault while performing action only for the upkeep of the body.
Word for word
Free of wishes, with mind and self restrained, having given up all possessions, doing action only for the body's upkeep, he incurs no fault.
The commentators
Bhagavadgītābhāṣyam
यः पुनः पूर्वोक्तविपरीतः प्रागेव कर्मारम्भात् ब्रह्मणि सर्वान्तरे प्रत्यगात्मनि निष्क्रिये सञ्जातात्मदर्शनः स दृष्टादृष्टेष्टविषयाशीर्विवर्जिततया दृष्टादृष्टार्थे कर्मणि प्रयोजनमपश्यन् ससाधनं कर्म संन्यस्य शरीरयात्रामात्रचेष्टः यतिः ज्ञाननिष्ठो मुच्यते इत्येतमर्थं दर्शयितुमाह —
निराशीः निर्गताः आशिषः यस्मात् सः निराशीः, यतचित्तात्मा चित्तम् अन्तःकरणम् आत्मा बाह्यः कार्यकरणसङ्घातः तौ उभावपि यतौ संयतौ येन सः यतचित्तात्मा, त्यक्तसर्वपरिग्रहः त्यक्तः सर्वः परिग्रहः येन सः त्यक्तसर्वपरिग्रहः, शारीरं शरीरस्थितिमात्रप्रयोजनम् , केवलं तत्रापि अभिमानवर्जितम् , कर्म कुर्वन् न आप्नोति न प्राप्नोति किल्बिषम् अनिष्टरूपं पापं धर्मं च । धर्मोऽपि मुमुक्षोः किल्बिषमेव बन्धापादकत्वात् । तस्मात् ताभ्यां मुक्तः भवति, संसारात् मुक्तो भवति इत्यर्थः ॥
‘शारीरं केवलं कर्म’ इत्यत्र किं शरीरनिर्वर्त्यं शारीरं कर्म अभिप्रेतम् , आहोस्वित् शरीरस्थितिमात्रप्रयोजनं शारीरं कर्म इति ? किं च अतः यदि शरीरनिर्वर्त्यं शारीरं कर्म यदि वा शरीरस्थितिमात्रप्रयोजनं शारीरम् इति ? उच्यते — यदा शरीरनिर्वर्त्यं कर्म शारीरम् अभिप्रेतं स्यात् , तदा दृष्टादृष्टप्रयोजनं कर्म प्रतिषिद्धमपि शरीरेण कुर्वन् नाप्नोति किल्बिषम् इति ब्रुवतो विरुद्धाभिधानं प्रसज्येत । शास्त्रीयं च कर्म दृष्टादृष्टप्रयोजनं शरीरेण कुर्वन् नाप्नोति किल्बिषम् इत्यपि ब्रुवतः अप्राप्तप्रतिषेधप्रसङ्गः । ‘शारीरं कर्म कुर्वन्’ इति विशेषणात् केवलशब्दप्रयोगाच्च वाङ्मनसनिर्वर्त्यं कर्म विधिप्रतिषेधविषयं धर्माधर्मशब्दवाच्यं कुर्वन् प्राप्नोति किल्बिषम् इत्युक्तं स्यात् । तत्रापि वाङ्मनसाभ्यां विहितानुष्ठानपक्षे किल्बिषप्राप्तिवचनं विरुद्धम् आपद्येत । प्रतिषिद्धसेवापक्षेऽपि भूतार्थानुवादमात्रम् अनर्थकं स्यात् । यदा तु शरीरस्थितिमात्रप्रयोजनं शारीरं कर्म अभिप्रेतं भवेत् , तदा दृष्टादृष्टप्रयोजनं कर्म विधिप्रतिषेधगम्यं शरीरवाङ्मनसनिर्वर्त्यम् अन्यत् अकुर्वन् तैरेव शरीरादिभिः शरीरस्थितिमात्रप्रयोजनं केवलशब्दप्रयोगात् ‘अहं करोमि’ इत्यभिमानवर्जितः शरीरादिचेष्टामात्रं लोकदृष्ट्या कुर्वन् नाप्नोति किल्बिषं । एवंभूतस्य पापशब्दवाच्यकिल्बिषप्राप्त्यसम्भवात् किल्बिषं संसारं न आप्नोति ; ज्ञानाग्निदग्धसर्वकर्मत्वात् अप्रतिबन्धेन मुच्यत एव इति पूर्वोक्तसम्यग्दर्शनफलानुवाद एव एषः । एवम् ‘शारीरं केवलं कर्म’ इत्यस्य अर्थस्य परिग्रहे निरवद्यं भवति ॥ २१ ॥
In plain words
But there is another kind of person, the very opposite of the one just described: in him, the vision of Brahman — the inward Self within all, the Self that never acts — has already arisen before he ever took up any action. Being wholly free of desire for anything wanted, whether seen or unseen, he sees no point in action aimed at any seen or unseen goal, and simply renounces action along with its means. Such an ascetic, whose only remaining activity is keeping the body alive, established firmly in knowledge, is released. To show exactly this, he now says —
'Without desires' means: all his desires are gone, and that is why he is called this. 'Controlled in mind and body' means: mind, here, is the inner instrument, and body is the outer aggregate of body and senses — both of these are held in check, and that is why he is called controlled in mind and body. 'Having abandoned all possessions' means: every possession has been let go by him, and that is why he is called this. 'Bodily action' means action whose only purpose is keeping the body alive, nothing more, and even in that he carries no sense of being the doer — performing action, he incurs no guilt at all, whether it takes the unwanted shape of sin or even of merit. Because for someone seeking liberation, even merit is nothing but guilt — it too binds. So he becomes free of both; he becomes free of saṃsāra itself. That is the meaning.
Here, when the verse says 'bodily action, and only that,' what exactly is meant — action accomplished by the body, or action whose only purpose is keeping the body alive? And what follows from each reading? Here is the answer: if 'bodily' meant action accomplished by the body, then a self-contradiction would follow for anyone claiming that doing even forbidden action, aimed at some seen or unseen goal, incurs no guilt just because it's done with the body — and it would be pointless to say the same about scripturally sanctioned action too, since that was never in question in the first place. And from the phrase 'doing bodily action' together with the word 'only,' it would follow that doing action accomplished by speech or mind — action bound by scriptural injunction and prohibition, called merit or demerit — does incur guilt. But that too runs into trouble: for enjoined acts of speech and mind, saying guilt is incurred contradicts itself, and for forbidden ones, it's simply restating the obvious, which serves no purpose. But if 'bodily' means action whose only purpose is keeping the body alive, then the picture is different: not performing any other action bound by injunction or prohibition — whether through body, speech, or mind — and using only the body and the rest for nothing but bare survival, precisely because of that word 'only,' free of any sense of 'I am doing this,' merely going through the motions of body and the rest as the world sees it — such a person incurs no guilt. For someone like this, incurring guilt in the sense the word 'sin' implies is simply impossible; he incurs neither guilt nor saṃsāra, because all his action has been burnt by the fire of knowledge, and he is released without any obstruction at all. And this is really nothing more than a restatement of the fruit of right vision already described. So, understood this way, 'bodily action, and only that' is entirely free of fault.
Close to the Sanskrit
But whoever, the opposite of what was said before, has the vision of Brahman — the inward Self, inner to all, actionless — arise in him already before action begins; he, being wholly free of desire for objects desired, seen or unseen, seeing no purpose in action that has a seen or unseen purpose, renouncing action together with its means, an ascetic whose only activity is for the mere sustenance of the body, established in knowledge, is released — to show this meaning, he says —
'Without desires' — gone away are the desires from whom, he is 'without desires'; 'controlled in mind and body' — 'mind' [means] the inner instrument, 'body' [means] the external aggregate of body and senses; those two, both, being controlled, restrained, by whom, he is 'controlled in mind and body'; 'having abandoned all possessions' — abandoned is every possession by whom, he is 'one who has abandoned all possessions'; 'bodily [action],' whose purpose is only the bare maintenance of the body, and only that, even there free of the sense of ownership — doing action, he does not incur, does not obtain, guilt, in the form of the undesired, sin or merit alike; for merit too, for one seeking liberation, is nothing but guilt, because it too brings about bondage. Therefore he becomes freed from those two, becomes free from saṃsāra. This is the meaning.
Here, in 'bodily, only action,' is it intended that bodily action is action accomplished by the body, or that bodily action is action whose purpose is only the maintenance of the body? And what follows from this — if it is action accomplished by the body, or if it is action whose purpose is only the maintenance of the body? It is answered — when action accomplished by the body were intended by 'bodily,' then a self-contradictory claim would follow for one who says, 'even forbidden action, having a seen or unseen purpose, while doing it by the body, one would not incur guilt' — and, for one who further claims, 'while doing scripturally enjoined action, having a seen or unseen purpose, by the body, one would not incur guilt,' the fallacy of prohibiting what does not otherwise even apply would result. From the qualifier 'doing bodily action,' and the use of the word 'only,' this would be [tacitly] claimed: 'in doing action accomplished by speech and mind, falling within the scope of injunction and prohibition, expressible by the words merit and demerit, one would incur guilt.' But there too, in the case of performing what is enjoined by speech and mind, the statement that guilt is incurred would be self-contradictory; and in the case of engaging in what is forbidden, it would be pointless, merely restating an already-established fact. But when action whose purpose is only the maintenance of the body were intended by 'bodily,' then, not performing action with a seen or unseen purpose, known through injunction and prohibition, accomplished by body, speech, or mind, other than [bodily maintenance] — using only the body and the rest for the bare maintenance of the body, only that, because of the word 'only' — free of the sense 'I do this,' performing only the bare motions of body and the rest as seen by the world, he does not incur guilt. For one who is thus, incurring guilt expressible by the word 'sin' being impossible, he does not incur guilt, saṃsāra; because all his action is burnt by the fire of knowledge, he is simply released, without obstruction — and this is nothing but a restatement of the fruit of the right vision already spoken of. So, in taking 'bodily, only action' in this sense, it is faultless. || 21 ||