Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 18, Verse 28: Krishna to Arjuna — Mokṣa-Sannyāsa-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  The tamasic agent is one who is 'ayukta' (unintegrated, mind scattered from duty) and 'prakrita' (of wholly unshaped intellect, like a child). He is 'stabdha' (rigid as a post, bowing to no one), 'shatha' (concealing his capacities while pretending incapacity), and 'naishkritika' (intent on fracturing others). He is 'alasa' (constitutionally non-initiating even in obligatory acts), 'vishadi' (perpetually collapsed in despondency), and 'dirghasutri' (stretching what must be done today or tomorrow across a month without completion). Shankara reads each term as a precise defect in the preparation for karma-yoga that yields jnana: no integration means no qualified renunciation.

  divergence: Shankara uniquely stresses 'asamahita' (unintegrated concentration) as the root defect — without inner sammahana, no karma can serve as jnana-preparation.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  The tamasic agent is 'ayukta' in the sense of being unfit for shastra-ordained karma — he abides in vikarma (prohibited action). He is 'prakrita' (without acquired learning), 'stabdha' (not even beginning meritorious effort), and 'shatha' (drawn to abhichara and harmful rites). He is 'naishkritika' (a deceiver), 'alasa' (sluggish even in work already begun), 'vishadi' (prone to extreme collapse of spirit), and 'dirghasutri' — uniquely glossed by Ramanuja as one who, even while performing abhichara, schemes at length about causing distant harm to others. Such an agent inverts kainkarya (service) into injury.

  divergence: Ramanuja alone specifies 'dirghasutri' as long-term scheming of harm to others through abhichara — linking tamasic delay to active malevolence, not merely inertia.

• Madhvadvaita

  Madhva focuses his gloss on 'dirghasutri' alone, providing a precise technical definition: one who informs on the faults of another, even faults committed long ago and by another agent. The 'dirghasutri' is not merely a procrastinator but a fault-tracker and informer across time. This reading orients the tamasic agent not toward inertia but toward malicious retrospective accusation — a distinct mode of tamas as parasitic social harm.

  divergence: Madhva is the only school that re-defines 'dirghasutri' as an informer/fault-exposer rather than a procrastinator — a genuinely divergent philological claim anchored in etymology of 'sutri' as thread-puller or sutra-maker (one who 'threads' accusations).

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Vallabha follows Ramanuja's vocabulary closely: the tamasic agent is fit for shastra-ordained karma yet stands in vikarma, is without learning, is 'stabdha' (slack at initiation), is 'shatha' (drawn to abhichara, a deceiver), is 'alasa' in action, 'duhkhi' (suffering), and is one for whom 'dirgham sutram kartavyata' — the thread of what must be done remains perpetually long, never shortened by completion. In Pushti-marga, this agent has not received Bhagavan's prasada; his stasis is not mere inertia but absence of divine grace.

  divergence: Vallabha adds 'duhkhi' (one who suffers) as a distinct attribute — not present in Shankara's listing — reflecting the Pushti-marga reading of tamasic existence as a condition of unchosen affliction rather than culpable will.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Shridhara provides a bhakti-inflected catalogue: 'ayukta' is 'anavahita' (inattentive, not absorbed); 'prakrita' is 'vivekashunya' (devoid of discriminative intelligence); 'stabdha' is 'anamra' (refusing to bow); 'shatha' is one who conceals capacity; 'naishkritika' is 'paravamani' (one who humiliates others); 'alasa' is 'anudyamashila' (constitutionally non-effortful); 'vishadi' is 'shokashila' (habitually grief-stricken). He closes by noting that threefold variety among agents implicitly declares threefold variety among knowers, and threefold karma implicitly declares threefold objects of knowledge — situating this verse within the larger triadic architecture of chapter 18.

  divergence: Shridhara alone explicitly connects this verse to the triadic hermeneutic of ch. 18 as a whole, treating the agent's three types as unlocking the types of knower and known — a meta-structural observation absent from the other schools.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusudhana gives the richest psychological portrait: 'ayukta' is one whose mind is perpetually carried off by sense-objects so that he cannot attend to duty; 'prakrita' is one of unformed intellect, child-like; 'stabdha' does not bow even to guru or devata; 'shatha' knows the truth but speaks otherwise to deceive; 'naishkritika' creates a false impression that he is the benefactor of another, then severs that relationship for self-gain. 'Alasa' is non-initiating even in obligatory acts; 'vishadi' is perpetually discontented and self-lamenting; 'dirghasutri' is one whose inner faculty is swallowed by a thousand unceasing doubts, making him so slow that what must be done today may or may not get done in a month.

  divergence: Madhusudhana is unique in identifying the interior mechanism of 'dirghasutri' as 'nirantara-shankasahasra' — a thousand unceasing doubts devouring the antahkarana — giving what is elsewhere a behavioral description an explicitly psychological-meditational diagnosis.