Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 17, Verse 21: Krishna to Arjuna — Śraddhātraya-Vibhāga-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Dana (giving) motivated by praty-upakara (reciprocal benefit) — the thought 'this person will repay me in time' — or directed toward adrishta-phala (unseen karmic fruit such as heaven), and given pariklishtam (with inner distress or reluctance), is rajasic. Shankara identifies two distinct taints: the calculation of return, whether visible or karmic, and the psychic contraction (klesha) with which the gift is made. Both bind the giver in the web of doership; neither can serve as purification of the antahkarana (inner instrument) required for jnana.

  divergence: Shankara: 'prati-upakarartha... adrishtam iti... tat uddiShya... parikliShtam khedasamyuktam' — the pairing of reciprocal-aim with grief-tinged giving as the joint definition of rajasic dana.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Ramanuja specifies that rajasic dana carries praty-upakara-kataksha-garbha — a gaze secretly aimed at reciprocation embedded within the act — and involves akalyana-dravyaka, inauspicious or unworthy materials. Unlike sattvic dana where the recipient is Bhagavan's representative and the gift is pure kainkarya (service), rajasic dana treats the recipient as a transactional partner and selects materials without regard for their fitness as an offering. The giving cannot rise to bhakti because the giver's attention rests on the expected return rather than on Ishvara as the inner witness.

  divergence: Ramanuja: 'prati-upakara-kataksha-garbham phalam uddiShya ca parikliShtam akalyaana-dravyakam' — the embedded gaze of reciprocal expectation plus unworthy materials together constitute the rajasic mark.

• Madhvadvaita

  *Dāna* (giving) driven by *pratyupakāra* (expectation of return) or by desire for *phala* (fruit), and given with *parikliṣṭa* (strain, reluctance), is declared *rājasa*. In the dvaita reading, the very structure of *pratyupakārārtham* — giving so that something comes back — betrays the *jīva*'s assertion of *svatantrya* (self-sufficient agency), a claim that belongs to Hari alone. The giver who calculates return has displaced *Hari-prīti* as the sole *kāraṇa* (cause) of the act and substituted the *jīva*'s own appetite. *Parikliṣṭa* deepens the indictment: the giver resents the outlay even while expecting reward, so the act is doubly severed from the Lord — neither offered to Him nor motivated by delight in Him. *Pañca-bheda* (the five-fold real distinction) holds firm: the *jīva* is *paratantra* (eternally dependent), and any giving that obscures this dependence by treating the *jīva* as self-moved proprietor falls into *rājas*. *Taratamya* (graded ontological hierarchy) applies even within *rājasa-dāna*: expectation of honour is less binding than expectation of wealth, but neither uproots the root-error of imagined *svatantrya*. Scripture's verdict — *smṛtam*, 'it is so declared' — closes the classification with the authority of *śāstra*, which for Madhva is itself *Hari-vākya* (the word of Hari).

  divergence: No bhāṣya from Madhva or Jayatīrtha on BG 17.21 is extant. Reading derived directly from dvaita siddhānta primitives applied to the mūla.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  *Dāna* (giving) given grudgingly — *parikliṣṭam* — or with expectation of return (*pratyupakārārtham*) or with an eye fixed on fruit (*phalam uddiśya*) is *rājasa*. In *puṣṭi-mārga* (the path of grace), the mark of *rājasa* dāna is precisely this retention of the ego's claim: the giver holds the act in his own hand, expecting reciprocity or result, and so the giving never becomes *sevā* (loving service to Kṛṣṇa). Brahman alone is real, and the world is Brahman's own real manifestation — every act belongs already to the Lord. When the *jīva* (the individual self) gives with a calculative disposition, clinging to *phala* (fruit), it contracts away from *brahma-sambandha* (the bond of belonging to Brahman) and moves in the orbit of *rajas*. The *parikliṣṭa* quality — the anguish or reluctance in the giving — discloses an inner withholding: the *jīva* has not surrendered the act into the flow of Kṛṣṇa's own abundance, without which no external gift participates in the joy that *puṣṭi* alone bestows. Such dāna is *rājasam smṛtam* — traditionally reckoned *rājasa* — and stands at a remove from the disposition of *tadīya-bhāva* (the stance of belonging wholly to Him), which alone transforms giving into a real movement within the Lord's grace.

  divergence: No Vallabha bhāṣya extant on this verse; the reading is voiced directly from śuddhādvaita siddhānta — puṣṭi-mārga doctrine of sevā, brahma-sambandha, and the non-illusory real manifestation — applied to the mūla.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Sridhara identifies two taints that make dana rajasic: first, the aim at praty-upakara across time ('this person will repay me later'), and second, the aim at svargadi-phala (fruits such as heaven and other worldly goods). Either aim converts the gift into a concealed transaction. He further specifies that the giving must be citta-klesha-yukta — accompanied by mental affliction or inner turmoil — for the label rajasic to apply fully. A gift may aim at fruit without visible distress, or may be distressed without explicit calculation; the full rajasic mark is both together.

  divergence: Sridhara: 'kalaantare ayam maam praty-upakaram karishyati... svargadikam uddiShya... citta-klesha-yuktam' — temporal reciprocal expectation, fruit-directed aim, and mental affliction as the triad.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusudan distinguishes two sub-types of tainted motive more sharply than the others: drishTartha-hetu, giving for a visible worldly return (the praty-upakara calculated in present time), and phala-uddesha, giving for future karmic fruit such as svarga. He then adds a third marker absent in Shankara's brief gloss: the gift is given paschattapa-yukta — tinged with subsequent regret, the giver later lamenting 'how much was spent.' This regret-component shows that rajasic dana is not merely calculative at the moment of giving but continues to corrode the mind afterward, confirming that the act never issued from the sattvic disposition of niShkama-bhava which alone purifies for jnana-bhakti.

  divergence: Madhusudan: 'driShTartham phalam va svargadikam uddiShya... paschattapa-yuktam katham etavad vyayitam iti' — visible return, karmic fruit, and post-gift regret as three distinct rajasic marks.