Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 18, Verse 22: Krishna to Arjuna — Mokṣa-Sannyāsa-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  That knowledge is tamasic which clings to a single product — a body or an idol — as though it were the complete totality (krtsnava), without rational warrant (ahetuka): the error of those who, like naked Digambara materialists, shrink atman to the body's own dimensions, or who, like idol-worshippers, reduce Isvara to stone or wood. Such knowledge is not grounded in ultimate reality (atattvarthavat) precisely because it has no supporting reasoning: if the self were merely one particular body-product, why would that one body-product possess selfhood while all other body-products do not? Because it grasps only a narrow fragment, its fruit too is petty (alpa) — fit only for those among tamasic creatures (tamasanam praninam) who lack discernment (avivekinam).

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  That knowledge is tamasic which, among the many obligatory duties available, becomes wholly fixated (sakta) on a single trivial rite — the propitiation of ghosts and spirit-bands (preta-bhuta-gana-aradhana) — treating its meagre fruit as though it were the complete fruit (krtsna-phala-vat), and doing so without any doctrinal justification (ahetuka) for that fixation. It is not grounded in reality (atattvarthavat) because it takes the jiva as wholly separate and autonomous rather than as the body of Bhagavan, and it is petty (alpa) because propitiation of departed spirits yields only a transient, minor result — far beneath the sole worthy end, which is service to Bhagavan.

• Madhvadvaita

  *Tāmasic* (of the mode of darkness) *jñāna* (knowledge) seizes upon a single *kārya* (produced, dependent thing) — one body, one image, one *paratantra* (eternally dependent) creature — as though it were the *kṛtsna* (whole, entire) of reality: *kṛtsnavad ekasminkārye saktam*. This collapse is *ahaituka* (without valid ground, causally unintelligible), for it lacks the *pramāṇa* to distinguish *svatantra* (the independently real, self-sufficient) Hari from the *paratantra* *jīva* and the inert *jagat* (world). Where *pañca-bheda* (the five-fold real distinction: Lord–jīva, Lord–matter, jīva–jīva, jīva–matter, matter–matter) is the very structure of what is, such knowledge is *atattvārthavat* — not oriented to reality as it is — and therefore *alpa* (trivial, meager), incapable of grounding *bhakti* (devotion) as ontological subordination to Hari or of producing liberation. Hari's *taratamya* (graded ontological hierarchy) among beings goes entirely unseen; the knowing subject mistakes a fragment of *paratantra* existence for the whole and so remains bound.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  That tamasic knowledge, says Vallabha, is the knowledge that clings to a single karya — the worship of pretas and spirit-gangs (preta-bhuta-gana-aradhana) whose fruit is utterly petty — treating it as though it yielded the complete fruit (krtsna-phala-vat), and without purpose (nisprayojana). It is wholly devoid of the recognition that every act, to bear any real fruit, must be rooted in Krsna's lila-prasada; outside that rooting, any knowledge, however earnest, produces only triviality.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Tamasic knowledge, says Sridhara, is that which fastens (sakta) upon a single object — whether the physical body or an image — with the conviction 'this alone is atman, or Isvara' (etavan eva atma isvaro va), as though that fragment were the complete whole (paripurnavat). It is without valid reasoning (nirupapattikam), devoid of any hold on ultimate reality (paramartha-avalambana-sunyam), and therefore trivial (tuccha) — trivial both because its object is narrow and because its fruit is minor. Such is the knowledge declared tamasic.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusudana Sarasvati anchors the tamas diagnosis in concrete philosophical opponents: the Digambaras who posit an atman exactly the size of the body, the Carvakas who identify the body itself as atman, and idol-worshippers who reduce Isvara to stone or wood — all share the same structural error: they seize one karya (product/effect) among many and treat it as the complete whole (krtsnava), without asking why that one product should bear selfhood when the rest do not (ahetuka). Such knowledge is not grounded in the truth of atman's eternity and all-pervasiveness (nityatva, vibhutva), and is therefore trivial. Madhusudana adds that wise observers simply note: 'this is the kind of knowledge that tamasic, common (prakrta) people are seen to hold.'