Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 14, Verse 9: Krishna to Arjuna — Guṇatraya-Vibhāga-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Sattva (the luminous quality) binds the embodied one to sukha (pleasure); rajas (the activating quality) binds to karma (action); tamas (the obscuring quality), however, covers jnana (the discriminative knowledge produced by sattva) through its own nature as an obscurer and binds to pramada (heedlessness — defined by Sankara as the non-performance of what ought to be done). Each quality operates through its characteristic mode: sattva through attachment to pleasant experience, rajas through compulsive doing, tamas through the suppression of viveka (discernment) itself. The wise one, recognizing these as modifications of prakrti (nature) and not the atman (self), does not identify with any of them.

  divergence: Sankara defines pramada explicitly as 'prapta-kartavya-akaranam' — the non-execution of duty that has arrived; tamas binds by its own 'avarana-atmana' (veiling-nature), covering sattva-produced viveka.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Sattva, being predominantly characterized by attachment to sukha, binds the jiva (individual self) to pleasant experience; rajas, predominantly characterized by attachment to karma (action), binds to restless doing; tamas, however, is primarily characterized by attachment to contrary-direction activity — it veils vastu-yatharthya-jnana (knowledge of things as they truly are) and thus becomes the cause of inverted knowledge and consequent engagement in what opposes kartavya (rightful duty). All three qualities, though arising together as inherent in the body-constituted prakrti, produce mutually contrary effects because their relative predominance shifts — the Lord is now asked how qualities always co-present generate contradictory functions.

  divergence: Ramanuja glosses sattva as 'sukha-sanga-pradhana', rajas as 'karma-sanga-pradhana', tamas as 'viparita-jnana-hetu-taya kartavya-viparita-pravrtti-sanga-pradhana' — each quality characterized by its dominant sanga (attachment-tendency).

• Madhvadvaita

  Sattva, rajas, and tamas are real and eternal modifications of prakrti — fully distinct from and utterly subordinate to Hari (Bhagavan Visnu); sattva binds the eternally-distinct jiva to sukha, rajas to karma, tamas to pramada by covering jnana. The jiva's bondage is real, not illusory; liberation is achieved only through Hari's direct grace, not by transcending maya through knowledge alone.

  divergence: No Madhva bhashya prose was supplied in the payload for this verse; this rendering extrapolates from Dvaita first principles (jiva-Brahman-bheda, real prakrti, grace-dependent moksa) consistent with Madhva's established position on the guna-chapter.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Sattva, rajas, and tamas each have their own svabhava (innate character) of producing their respective fruits: sattva naturally generates suka-adisanjana (binding to pleasure and the like); rajas generates karma-sanjana (binding to action); tamas veils jnana and generates pramada. The verse is terse because the mechanism has been stated — what remains is recognizing that all three qualities are Krishna's own lila-sakti (play-power), and that the bhakta (devotee) who takes refuge in Krishna alone is lifted beyond all three by His prasada (grace).

  divergence: Vallabha's gloss focuses on svabhava: 'sukha-adi-sanjana-svabhavam' as the essential character-description of sattva; the comment is brief, pointing to a pattern established for all three.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Sattva binds the dehin (embodied one) to sukha — even when causes of sorrow are present, it turns the person toward pleasure; rajas, even when causes of happiness are present, binds only to karma (action); tamas, even when great ones are teaching and jnana is arising, covers and conceals that knowledge and binds to pramada (heedlessness toward what is being taught) and also to alasya (laziness). The 'uta' (moreover) in the verse expands tamas's domain: it binds not only to heedlessness toward instruction but also to laziness and other forms of inertia.

  divergence: Sridhara specifies the adversative force of each guna: sattva overcomes duhkha-causes to produce sukha-orientation; rajas overcomes sukha-causes to produce karma-orientation; 'uta' is glossed as 'api' extending tamas to alasya-adi (laziness and so on).

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  When sattva is predominant (utkrista), it overpowers the cause of duhkha (suffering) and binds all dehin (embodied beings) to sukha; when rajas is predominant, it overpowers the cause of sukha and binds to karma; tamas, even when jnana arising from sattva's force is present, covers and conceals it through pramada and then binds to pramada — that is, to the non-knowing of what is known — and further binds to alasya (laziness), to tamasi-nidra (tamasic sleep), and to non-performance of kartavya (duty that has arrived). The 'uta' extends the domain of tamas to all forms of inertia, not only inattention.

  divergence: Madhusudan's 'utkrista sat' framing is key: each guna operates only when predominant, overpowering the others' causes; pramada is glossed as 'prapta-jnayamana-tasya-apy-ajnane' (non-knowing of the very thing being known), and alasya and tamasi-nidra are explicitly listed as tamas's extended domain.