{
 "verse_id": "18.25",
 "mūla": {
  "devanāgarī": "अनुबन्धं क्षयं हिंसामनपेक्ष्य च पौरुषम् | मोहादारभ्यते कर्म यत् तत् तामसमुच्यते",
  "iast": "anubandhaṃ kṣayaṃ hiṃsāmanapekṣya ca pauruṣam | mohādārabhyate karma yat tat tāmasamucyate",
  "chapter_position": "Chapter 18 (Mokṣa-Sannyāsa-Yoga (The Yoga of Liberation by Renunciation)), verse 25",
  "speaker": "Krishna",
  "addressed_to": "Arjuna"
 },
 "word_by_word": [
  {
   "surface_form": "anubandham",
   "lemma": "anubandha",
   "grammar": "accusative masculine singular noun",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "अनुबन्धम्"
  },
  {
   "surface_form": "kṣayam",
   "lemma": "kṣaya",
   "grammar": "accusative masculine singular noun",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "क्षयम्"
  },
  {
   "surface_form": "hiṃsām",
   "lemma": "hiṃsā",
   "grammar": "accusative feminine singular noun",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "हिंसाम्"
  },
  {
   "surface_form": "an",
   "lemma": "an",
   "grammar": "",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "अन्"
  },
  {
   "surface_form": "apekṣya",
   "lemma": "apekṣ",
   "grammar": "conv",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "अपेक्ष्य"
  },
  {
   "surface_form": "ca",
   "lemma": "ca",
   "grammar": "",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "च"
  },
  {
   "surface_form": "pauruṣam",
   "lemma": "pauruṣa",
   "grammar": "accusative neuter singular noun",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [
    {
     "sense": "आत्मनः कर्मसमापनसामर्थ्यम्, एतानि अनवेक्ष्य अविमृश्य मोहात् परमपुरुषकर्तृत्वाज्ञानाद्",
     "school": "viśiṣṭādvaita",
     "weight": 0.8,
     "witnesses": [
      "ramanuja"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "पौरुषम्"
  },
  {
   "surface_form": "mohāt",
   "lemma": "moha",
   "grammar": "ablative masculine singular noun",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "मोहात्"
  },
  {
   "surface_form": "ārabhyate",
   "lemma": "ā-√rabh",
   "grammar": "present indicative pass 3rd person singular verb",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "आरभ्यते"
  },
  {
   "surface_form": "karma",
   "lemma": "karman",
   "grammar": "nominative neuter singular noun",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "कर्म"
  },
  {
   "surface_form": "yat",
   "lemma": "yad",
   "grammar": "nominative neuter singular noun",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "यत्"
  },
  {
   "surface_form": "tat",
   "lemma": "tad",
   "grammar": "nominative neuter singular noun",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "तत्"
  },
  {
   "surface_form": "tāmasam",
   "lemma": "tāmasa",
   "grammar": "nominative neuter singular noun",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [
    {
     "sense": "उच्यते",
     "school": "viśiṣṭādvaita",
     "weight": 0.8,
     "witnesses": [
      "ramanuja"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "तामसम्"
  },
  {
   "surface_form": "ucyate",
   "lemma": "√vac",
   "grammar": "present indicative pass 3rd person singular verb",
   "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
   "theme_lists": [],
   "surface_devanagari": "उच्यते"
  }
 ],
 "intertextual_panel": [
  {
   "verse": "17.19",
   "type": "lemma-family resonance",
   "score": 0.8973,
   "feature_breakdown": {
    "cosine": 0.8473,
    "theme_graph": 0.0,
    "vocative": 0.0,
    "substring": 0.0,
    "lemma_overlap": 15.1608,
    "stem_prefix": 5.0
   }
  },
  {
   "verse": "18.22",
   "type": "near-cluster echo",
   "score": 0.8898,
   "feature_breakdown": {
    "cosine": 0.8398,
    "theme_graph": 0.0,
    "vocative": 0.0,
    "substring": 0.0,
    "lemma_overlap": 11.1618,
    "stem_prefix": 5.0
   }
  },
  {
   "verse": "18.39",
   "type": "lemma-family resonance",
   "score": 0.8849,
   "feature_breakdown": {
    "cosine": 0.8249,
    "theme_graph": 0.0,
    "vocative": 0.0,
    "substring": 0.0,
    "lemma_overlap": 17.8392,
    "stem_prefix": 6.0
   }
  },
  {
   "verse": "17.22",
   "type": "lemma-family resonance",
   "score": 0.8831,
   "feature_breakdown": {
    "cosine": 0.8331,
    "theme_graph": 0.0,
    "vocative": 0.0,
    "substring": 0.0,
    "lemma_overlap": 14.0929,
    "stem_prefix": 5.0
   }
  },
  {
   "verse": "7.29",
   "type": "shared-vocabulary echo",
   "score": 0.8826,
   "feature_breakdown": {
    "cosine": 0.8426,
    "theme_graph": 0.0,
    "vocative": 0.0,
    "substring": 0.0,
    "lemma_overlap": 6.9036,
    "stem_prefix": 4.0
   }
  },
  {
   "verse": "18.60",
   "type": "lemma-family resonance",
   "score": 0.8825,
   "feature_breakdown": {
    "cosine": 0.8425,
    "theme_graph": 0.0,
    "vocative": 0.0,
    "substring": 0.0,
    "lemma_overlap": 8.8878,
    "stem_prefix": 4.0
   }
  },
  {
   "verse": "8.1",
   "type": "shared-vocabulary echo",
   "score": 0.8825,
   "feature_breakdown": {
    "cosine": 0.8425,
    "theme_graph": 0.0,
    "vocative": 0.0,
    "substring": 0.0,
    "lemma_overlap": 7.1711,
    "stem_prefix": 4.0
   }
  },
  {
   "verse": "3.9",
   "type": "lemma-family resonance",
   "score": 0.8805,
   "feature_breakdown": {
    "cosine": 0.8305,
    "theme_graph": 0.0,
    "vocative": 0.0,
    "substring": 0.0,
    "lemma_overlap": 9.1358,
    "stem_prefix": 5.0
   }
  }
 ],
 "doctrinal_projections": {
  "advaita": {
   "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)",
   "key_cross_references": [],
   "witness_passages": [
    "shankara_18.25",
    "anandgiri_18.25"
   ],
   "score": 0.5,
   "divergence_note": "Shankara's emphasis falls on aviveka (absence of discriminative insight) as the root; the four factors are consequences of that single epistemic failure.",
   "english_rendering": "Action born of delusion (moha) — undertaken without discerning its consequent bonds (anubandha), the depletion of capacity or wealth it causes, the harm it inflicts on living beings, or whether one even has the competence to complete it — is declared tamasic. For Shankara, this is not merely moral failure but epistemic failure: the agent mistakes himself for the doer, ignores consequent harm, and acts from sheer avidya. Such karma deepens bondage (samsara) rather than purifying the antahkarana for jnana."
  },
  "viśiṣṭādvaita": {
   "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)",
   "key_cross_references": [],
   "witness_passages": [
    "ramanuja_18.25",
    "vedantadeshika_18.25"
   ],
   "score": 0.5,
   "english_rendering": "Action commenced without considering consequent sorrow (anubandha), loss of one's resources, harm to creatures, or one's own capacity to complete it — and above all, undertaken through ignorance of Paramatman's ultimate agency — is tamasic. For Ramanuja, the deepest tamas is not merely thoughtlessness but the failure to recognize that Bhagavan is the true kartri; the jiva who acts as though self-sufficient usurps the Lord's role and so accumulates karma rather than dissolving it through kainkarya.",
   "divergence_note": "Ramanuja alone adds the theological marker: the root tamas is metaphysical — non-recognition of divine kartritva — not just psychological delusion."
  },
  "dvaita": {
   "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)",
   "key_cross_references": [],
   "witness_passages": [
    "madhva_18.25",
    "jayatirtha_18.25"
   ],
   "score": 0.5,
   "divergence_note": "Madhva and Jayatīrtha are silent on this verse; the reading is voiced directly from dvaita siddhānta applied to the mūla.",
   "english_rendering": "*Mohāt* (from delusion) an act arises — heedless of *anubandha* (consequent bondage), *kṣaya* (diminution of means), *hiṃsā* (injury to beings), and one's own *pauruṣa* (human capacity). That act is *tāmasa*.\n\nFor the *paratantra* *jīva* (the eternally dependent individual self), delusion is precisely the forgetting of *bheda* (real distinction) — the agent displaces Hari's *svatantra* (independently real, self-sufficient) will with its own counterfeit independence. *Anubandha* and *kṣaya* are disregarded because the *tamasic* agent does not reckon with *taratamya* (graded ontological hierarchy): consequences fall on other *jīvas* who stand in their own ranked relation to Hari. *Hiṃsā* is the sharpest mark of *tāmasa* action — injury inflicted on beings who are themselves *paratantra*, fully owned by Hari as their *antaryāmin*. To wound them without regard is to strike, blindly, at what belongs to the *svatantra* Lord. *Bhakti* (devotion) as ontological subordination admits no such blindness; its absence is the very condition that makes the act *tāmasa*.",
   "provenance": "siddhānta_reconstruction"
  },
  "śuddhādvaita": {
   "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)",
   "key_cross_references": [],
   "witness_passages": [
    "vallabha_18.25"
   ],
   "score": 0.5,
   "english_rendering": "*Anubandha* (consequent bondage) is *duḥkha* (sorrow) — *tadavicārya* (without reflecting on that), *mohāt* (from delusion), *yat karma prārabhyate* (whatever action is begun) — *tat tāmasam udāhṛtam* (that is declared *tāmasa*). Vallabha's gloss compresses to this single movement: the agent does not pause to consider that *anubandha* is *duḥkha*, and so *mohāt* the action simply starts. Where *puṣṭi-mārga* (the path of grace) illumines every act as *sevā* (loving service) to Kṛṣṇa, that prior sorrow-laden bondage cannot arise; *tāmasa* action is precisely the inversion — Kṛṣṇa's *prasāda* (grace) forgotten, *pauruṣam* (one's own capacity) also unconsidered, and *kṣaya* (diminution) and *hiṃsā* (harm) left unexamined. The delusion is not incidental but is the root: *mohāt ārabhyate*.",
   "divergence_note": "The bhāṣya's gloss is extremely compressed — *anubandho duḥkhaṃ tadavicārya mohāt* — voicing only the sorrow-not-reflected axis and omitting separate treatment of *kṣaya*, *hiṃsā*, and *pauruṣam*. The expanded reading of *puṣṭi-mārga* and *sevā* is drawn from Vallabha's broader siddhānta rather than from this specific gloss."
  },
  "bhakti": {
   "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)",
   "key_cross_references": [],
   "witness_passages": [
    "sridhara_18.25"
   ],
   "score": 0.5,
   "divergence_note": "Sridhara is the most precise philologically, offering distinct glosses for each of the four terms; his bhakti-frame shows in 'para-pida' (harm-to-other) as a devotional concern, not merely ethical.",
   "english_rendering": "Tamasic action is that which is commenced without examining (anavekshya) its consequent results — both auspicious and inauspicious (anubandha), the expenditure of wealth (kshaya), harm to others (para-pida), or one's own capacity (sva-samarthya) — and is driven by delusion alone (kevalam mohat). Sridhara's reading is philologically careful: he glosses anubandha as 'paschad-bhavi shubhashubham' (subsequently arising good or evil), and distinguishes kshaya (wealth-depletion) from himsa (harm to living beings) more precisely than other commentators."
  },
  "advaita-bhakti": {
   "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)",
   "key_cross_references": [],
   "witness_passages": [
    "madhusudan_18.25"
   ],
   "score": 0.5,
   "divergence_note": "Madhusudana alone names Duryodhana as the exemplar, grounding abstract tamas-karma in a narrative referent that resonates for any reader of the Mahabharata.",
   "english_rendering": "Action undertaken without examining consequent inauspiciousness (anubandha), the destruction of bodily vigor, wealth, and armies (kshaya), harm to living beings (himsa), or one's own competence (pourusha) — driven by sheer undiscriminating delusion (kevala-aviveka) — is tamasic. Madhusudana anchors this with a concrete historical example: Duryodhana's declaration of war is precisely such action. His synthesis of Advaita and Bhakti shows here: the aviveka is not merely cognitive but is a failure to see Krishna as the ultimate referent of all action."
  },
  "vishishtadvaita": {
   "divergence_note": "Ramanuja alone adds the theological marker: the root tamas is metaphysical — non-recognition of divine kartritva — not just psychological delusion.",
   "score": 0.5
  },
  "shuddhAdvaita": {
   "divergence_note": "Vallabha's compression is deliberate: detailed consequentialist analysis is beside the point under *puṣṭi-mārga* (the path of grace); *tamas* is simply Krishna-forgetting, and the bhāṣya reflects this by folding all three terms (*kṣaya*, *hiṃsā*, *pauruṣa*) into the single word *duḥkha*, treated as what goes unexamined when *moha* rules.",
   "score": 0.5,
   "english_rendering": "*Anubandha* is *duḥkha* (suffering): when action is begun *mohāt* (from delusion) without examining that suffering — *anubandhaṃ duḥkhaṃ tadavicārya mohādyat karma prārabhyate* — that action is declared *tāmasa*. Vallabha reads *kṣayam* and *hiṃsām* as subsumed under *duḥkha*, and *pauruṣam* as equally disregarded when *moha* governs. The verse's triad of unconsidered consequences collapses into a single diagnostic: *tāmasa* karma is whatever arises from delusion without discernment of its own painful fruit."
  }
 },
 "prosodic_information": {
  "meter": "anuṣṭubh",
  "meter_shift_from_previous": false,
  "meter_shift_to_next": false,
  "pragmatic_context": {
   "vocative": "",
   "preceding_question": "",
   "following_response": ""
  }
 },
 "theme_list_memberships": [],
 "audit_trail": {
  "substrate_version": "v2.6-frozen",
  "fitted_weights": {
   "a": 1.0,
   "b": 0.01,
   "e_v": 0.005,
   "z": 0.2,
   "h": 0.0,
   "th": 0.01
  },
  "corpus_provenance": {
   "mūla": "Belvalkar critical edition (BORI 1947), via Ambuda multi-witness",
   "panel_witnesses": [
    "bg-mula",
    "bg-shankara",
    "bg-ramanuja",
    "bg-madhva",
    "bg-vedantadeshika",
    "bg-vallabha",
    "bg-jayatirtha",
    "bg-anandgiri",
    "bg-sridhara",
    "bg-madhusudan"
   ]
  },
  "extraction_date": "2026-04-21",
  "score_methodology_documented_at": "Paper 1, Section II.B",
  "word_by_word_parser": "ByT5-Sanskrit-multitask (Nehrdich/Hellwig/Keutzer EMNLP 2024)",
  "post_generation_repairs": [
   {
    "date": "2026-05-03",
    "fix": "dropped-space-at-consonant-consonant-joint corruption",
    "scope": "mūla.iast — spaces reinserted using word_by_word.surface_form as source of truth",
    "loci": [
     "yattattāmasamucyate -> yat tat tāmasamucyate"
    ]
   },
   {
    "date": "2026-05-03",
    "fix": "dropped-space-at-consonant-consonant-joint corruption",
    "scope": "mūla.devanāgarī — spaces reinserted using word_by_word surface fields as source of truth",
    "loci": [
     "यत्तत्तामसमुच्यते -> यत् तत् तामसमुच्यते"
    ]
   },
   {
    "date": "2026-05-03",
    "fix": "verb-lemma-misidentification (broader heuristic: prefix-√root canonical for all verb-tagged tokens)",
    "scope": "word_by_word[].lemma",
    "loci": [
     "ārabhyate: ārabh -> ā-√rabh",
     "ucyate: vac -> √vac"
    ]
   },
   {
    "kind": "qmark_artifact_repair",
    "applied_at": "2026-05-08T01:56:15.007789Z",
    "applied_by": "summon-web/scripts/repair_qmark_artifacts.py",
    "n_senses_repaired": 1,
    "substitution": "? -> ,",
    "root_cause": "ITRANS '\\,' (literal-comma escape) in sd_bgshankarabhashya.itx corrupted to '?' during upstream HTML pipeline at gitasupersite; propagated through h_c_panel/commentaries/bg_*.jsonl into substrate.",
    "verification_source": "sonos-paper/samvad_db/sources/sd_bgshankarabhashya.itx"
   }
  ]
 },
 "so_what_questions": [
  "What is the difference between a mistake made through ignorance and a tamasic act — and does the distinction matter morally or only karmically?",
  "The verse identifies four factors to examine before acting: future consequences, resource-depletion, harm to others, and one's own competence. Which of these is most commonly ignored in modern institutional decision-making, and why?",
  "If tamas arises from non-examination (anavekshya) rather than bad intention, can a well-intentioned person commit tamasic actions? What does that imply for moral responsibility?",
  "Ramanuja inserts 'ignorance of divine agency' as the deepest root of tamas. Does that theological claim change the practical guidance — or is the practical guidance identical regardless of the metaphysical backing?",
  "Madhusudana cites Duryodhana's war as the paradigmatic tamasic act. What structural features of that decision — not its content — make it tamasic? Can those features appear in everyday choices?",
  "The verse pairs 'himsa' (harm to living beings) with 'kshaya' (resource-depletion) as co-equal factors to examine. What does that pairing suggest about the Gita's conception of harm?",
  "How does non-examination (anavekshya / avicara) differ from simple risk-taking — and where is the line between courageous action under uncertainty and tamasic action?"
 ],
 "everyday_applications": {
  "advaita": "Before starting a major project, pause and ask: 'Am I clear-headed right now, or am I acting from agitation or compulsion?' Tamasic initiation is not about the project's content but about the epistemic state of the initiator. If you cannot articulate the consequent costs and harms, you are operating from aviveka — stop, restore clarity, then begin.",
  "vishishtadvaita": "When you feel driven to act by urgency or enthusiasm alone, ask: 'Am I accounting for what this costs others, what it costs me, and whether I am the appropriate agent?' The tamasic trap is not laziness but presumption — assuming you are the self-sufficient kartri. Refer the decision upward (to your deepest values, or in bhakti terms, to Bhagavan) before proceeding.",
  "dvaita": "In any consequential decision — a business expansion, a confrontation, a resource commitment — explicitly list the harm to other parties. Not as an afterthought, but as a first step. The Dvaita frame says those other parties are Hari-dependent beings whose welfare is not separate from your own duty. Ignoring them is not just ethical failure; it is a failure of recognition.",
  "shuddhAdvaita": "Tamasic action in the Pushti-marga frame is action taken in a state of Krishna-forgetting — when you are 'in your head' and cut off from the delight that flows from grace. The practical test: does this action feel forced, anxious, compulsive? If so, pause and restore connection before acting. Grace-saturated action has a different quality — lighter, clearer, less driven.",
  "bhakti": "Sridhara's precision offers a practical checklist: before starting anything significant, explicitly review (a) what follows afterward — good and bad, (b) what it will cost financially, (c) who might be hurt, (d) whether you actually have the capacity to finish. The tamasic person skips this checklist entirely. Making it a habit — even a 60-second review — is the antidote.",
  "advaita-bhakti": "Madhusudana's Duryodhana example points to a specific pattern: large-scale tamasic action often involves a person of capability who simply refuses to examine consequences because examination might require changing course. If you find yourself avoiding thinking through consequences of a decision you have already emotionally committed to — that is the Duryodhana pattern. The antidote is forced articulation: write out the costs before acting."
 },
 "primary_meaning": "Action started from sheer delusion, with no thought for its consequences, the harm it does, the resources it wastes, or whether you have the capacity to finish it, is declared tamasic."
}