Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 18, Verse 2: Krishna to Arjuna — Mokṣa-Sannyāsa-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  The learned (kavayah) hold that sannyasa means relinquishing desire-motivated actions (kamya-karma) such as the horse-sacrifice — these are simply not to be undertaken. The discerning (vicakshanah) hold that tyaga means releasing the fruit of all action, including nitya and naimittika rites, since the Lord confirms those rites do carry fruit for non-renouncers. These two terms mark distinct operations: sannyasa excises the action-form, tyaga excises the fruit-attachment — they are not synonyms as 'jar' and 'cloth' are not, yet both serve the single movement toward jnana.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Some wise ones (kechana vidvamsah) understand sannyasa as the structural giving-up (svarupa-tyaga) of desire-bound actions. Others more discerning say that in the moksha-shastras, tyaga names precisely the release of fruits across all karma — obligatory, occasional, and desire-prompted alike. Ramanuja resolves the apparent rivalry: since Krishna at 18.4 uses the word tyaga alone to deliver the final verdict, and since 18.7 and 18.12 use sannyasa and tyaga interchangeably, the two terms are established as paryayas (synonyms in scope), both pointing to fruit-relinquishment as the path of kainkarya.

• Madhvadvaita

  Sannyasa is the giving-up of desire-actions either by desirelessness or by non-performance — both routes count. Tyaga is precisely and only fruit-relinquishment. Madhva is terse and polemical: the Prachinashala shruti (a Vedic passage he cites as Prachina Shala's testimony) confirms this clean binary — non-desire or non-act of kamya-karma is sannyasa; fruit-release is tyaga. The jiva's distinction from Hari is encoded in the very structure: the dependent jiva cannot own fruits, so releasing fruit-ownership is the right worship-posture.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Vallabha opens by noting that sannyasa and tyaga share a single meaning yet diverge in scope (vishaya-bheda). The yogis (kavayah = yoginah) understand sannyasa as svarupa-tyaga, the relinquishment of the very form of Veda-enjoined desire-actions — jyotishtoma, ashvamedha, putrakama-yajna and all such. But those still more discerning (nipuna bhaktah), unable to accept even that form-relinquishment, hold that tyaga in the moksha-shastra names only the release of the fruits the shruti names — not abandonment of the acts themselves. On this view sannyasa-meaning is 'fulfilled by fruit-relinquishment, not by form-abandonment.'

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Sridhara reads the verse as presenting two parties. First party: the learned (pandita) know sannyasa as full renunciation of desire-actions along with their fruits. Second party: the discerning (nipunah) say tyaga is fruit-renunciation alone — not structural renunciation. He then resolves the objection that nitya-karma has no stated fruit (making 'fruit-renunciation' vacuous like a barren woman releasing a son) by arguing that even where no specific fruit is named, the Vedic injunction implicitly promises some fruit to motivate activity, and shruti confirms it ('sarve ete punya-loka bhavanti'). The karmas continue, redirected toward vividishtartha (desire-to-know atman), and their fruits are released as bondage.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusudana presents two views as genuine alternatives. View 1 (one party of kavayah): sannyasa = formal dropping of kamya-karma (desire-prompted actions which are useless for antahkarana-shuddhi); the nitya-karmas continue but offered to Bhagavan (bhagavad-arpana-buddhya) to purify the mind for jnana. View 2 (vicakshanah): tyaga = releasing the individually-stated fruits of all karmas — kamya and nitya alike — while performing them for vividishtartha. He then adjudicates: the difference between nitya and kamya karma is not intrinsic to the action but lies in the person's intention (purusha-abhipraya); with fruit-intention abandoned, both are identical in function. Sannyasa and tyaga thus share one meaning — fruit-intention-release for antahkarana-shuddhi — and this resolves Arjuna's first question.