Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 17, Verse 22: Krishna to Arjuna — Śraddhātraya-Vibhāga-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Giving that falls into triple defect — wrong place (adesa, an impure or mleccha-contaminated locale), wrong time (akala, a moment carrying no punya-potential, stripped of sankranti or festival mark), and wrong recipient (apatra, the foolish or thieving) — is declared tamasic. Even where place, time, and recipient are adequate, if the gift is given without honor (asat-krtam: no gentle word, no foot-washing, no worship) and with contempt toward the recipient (avajnatam), that too is tamasic. Sankara's point is diagnostic: tamas here is a compound failure of discretion, not merely stinginess, and its remedy lies in the discriminating faculty (viveka) that yajnadanatapas can purify when performed with proper guna.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Ramanuja reads the triple deficiency — wrong place, wrong time, wrong recipient — as dismantling the gift's character as kainkarya (service) to Bhagavan: dana addressed to an unfit vessel in an inauspicious setting fails to reach the Lord who inhabits the worthy recipient. The further marks of asat-krtam (absence of the reverential hospitality of pada-praksalana and the like) and savajnam (given with disdain) show that the giver's bhava (inner orientation) has not dissolved the ego-sense, so the act cannot function as bhakti-yoga preparation. This teaching closes Ramanuja's account of gunic differentiation in yajna-tapas-dana and opens his exposition of pranava-satyam-tat-sat as the markers of authentic Vedic action.

• Madhvadvaita

  Dāna given at *adeśa-kāle* (wrong place and time) and to *apātras* (unworthy recipients), dispensed without honor — *asatkṛtam* — and with *avajñā* (contempt), is declared *tāmasa*. Within the *pañca-bheda* (the five-fold real distinction) that structures all relation, the *jīva*'s giving is ontologically indexed to *taratamya* (graded ontological hierarchy): only dāna directed toward the worthy — those in whom *Hari* dwells as *antaryāmin* — ascends through the hierarchy toward *bhagavad-prīti* (delight in the Lord). Here, the triple failure of place, time, and recipient collapses that ascent. *Asatkṛtam* and *avajñātam* are not mere social lapses; *avajñā* toward a worthy recipient strikes at the *paratantra* (eternally dependent) *jīva*'s residing-place of Hari, converting an act of giving into an act of active opposition to the Lord's presence. Such a deed, saturated with *tamas*, generates no *bhakti* as ontological subordination to *Hari* — it moves the *paratantra jīva* further from *Hari*, the sole *svatantra* (the independently real, self-sufficient) ground of all existence.

  divergence: No Madhva or Jayatīrtha bhāṣya extant for this verse; reading reconstructed from Dvaita siddhānta applied directly to the mūla.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  *Dāna* (giving) performed at a wrong place (*adeśa*) and wrong time (*akāla*), to unworthy recipients (*apātrebhyaḥ*), without honor (*asatkṛtam*), and with contempt (*avajñātam*) — this is declared *tāmasa*. In *śuddhādvaita*, the world is no illusion but Kṛṣṇa's own real self-expression; every act of giving, properly oriented, belongs to *puṣṭi-mārga* (the path of divine grace), in which giver, gift, and recipient are each a manifestation of Kṛṣṇa's *prasāda* (gracious bestowal). *Tāmasa* giving ruptures this order: the wrong place and time sever the act from Kṛṣṇa's *līlā* (divine play); the unworthy recipient cannot sustain the flow of *prasāda*; contempt and lack of reverential warmth (*asatkāra*, *avajñā*) deny the act any quality of *sevā* (loving service). Where *puṣṭi-mārga* moves entirely by Kṛṣṇa's own *anugraha* (grace), *tāmasa* giving places itself outside that current — not because the world is *māyā*, which *śuddhādvaita* rejects, but because *brahma-sambandha* (the bond relating all things back to Brahman) is actively dishonored. Such giving cannot circulate Kṛṣṇa's grace; it dissipates it.

  divergence: Śuddhādvaita reads *tāmasa* dāna not through *māyā*-negation (which the school rejects) but through the positive disruption of *puṣṭi-mārga*'s grace-circuit. The world and its givers are real Kṛṣṇa-manifestations; *tāmasa* giving fails by dishonoring *brahma-sambandha*, not by being ontologically unreal.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Sridhara Svami specifies the tamasic gift with characteristic philological precision: adesa is a ritually impure place (asuci-sthana); akala is a time of pollution or inauspiciousness (asauca-samaya); apatra are the disreputable — actors, jesters, dancers (vita-nata-nartaka) — who neither embody nor transmit dharmic value. Even when place, time, and recipient are sound, giving stripped of the customary marks of honor — pada-praksalana (foot-washing) and the rest — and accompanied by contempt (tiraskara) degrades the act to tamas. Sridhara's rendering is notably concrete in naming the unfit recipients, anchoring the criterion in lived social and ritual context rather than abstract gunic theory.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusudana Sarasvati harmonizes jnana-discrimination with devotional warmth: adesa is a place that is intrinsically sinful or polluted through the company of the wicked (durjana-samsarga); akala includes both a time of asauca (ritual impurity) and any moment not renowned as a cause of punya. The unfit recipients are those bereft of vidya and tapas — actors, jesters (nata-vita) — whose lives carry no dharmic potency to receive and transmit the gift's merit. Where situation is adequate but honor absent (satkar-unya: no kind speech, no pada-praksalana, no puja) and contempt shown to the recipient (patra-paribhava), the act is again tamasic. Madhusudana's formulation aligns Sankara's categorial rigor with Sridhara's devotional attentiveness to the recipient's inner dignity.