Eke manishinah — some wise — prahuh — say — tyajyam — to be abandoned — karma — action — dosha-vat iti — like a defect. Apare — others — say — yajna-dana-tapah-karma — sacrifice, giving, austerity — na tyajyam — should never be abandoned.
Krishna names two camps: those who hold all karma defective and to be dropped; those who hold yajna-dana-tapas required and never droppable. The disagreement is real; Krishna will issue His nishchaya in 18.4.
Shankara draws a strict boundary: the debate concerns only those still under karmic adhikara, not the jnana-nishtha sannyasi who has already renounced all action through knowledge. One camp of pandits, following Sankhya, holds all karma to be abandoned because it is bandha-hetu. The other camp holds yajna-dana-tapas required as scripturally sanctioned action that purifies. The chapter's debate-resolution will follow.
Madhusudana frames the verse as opening the second question's answer, where he must resolve the threefold sense of sannyasa and tyaga. Two interpretations of dosha-vat — like a defect: either all karma is dosha because it is bandha-hetu, or karma is to be abandoned as one abandons raga — but only by those yet to develop the desire for knowledge. The verse stages the question with technical precision; Krishna's reply will follow.
Ramanuja identifies the two camps precisely: Kapila-following Sankhyas and some Vedic interpreters who, treating all yajna and karma as bondage-causing like a defect, recommend complete renunciation for the mumukshu. Against them stand other pandits declaring yajna, dana, tapas-karma must not be abandoned.
Ramanuja's framing implies that for him the second view is the correct one; karma performed as kainkarya is the bhakta's natural mode.
Madhva reads the verse as a resolved debate, not an open one: because the first camp is called manishinah — wise — even their position must be taken seriously, but the intended meaning is phala-tyaga — renunciation of fruit — rather than kriya-tyaga. The verse's very next teaching — 'yas tu karma-phala-tyagi' — confirms this.
Madhva treats both camps as fundamentally agreeing once the technical distinction is properly understood.
Vallabha reads the two camps as partial witnesses, each seeing one facet of the truth. The Sankhyas — manishinah — correctly perceive that karma tainted by himsa is to be abandoned; their insight is honored by the verse's use of manishinah. The Mimamsakas correctly insist that yajna-karma mandated by shruti cannot be relinquished; they too partially honor the Veda. Pushti-marga's resolution: keep the act, change the orientation, drop the himsa-element where present.
Shridhara reads the verse as stage-setting for the definitive position — that only karma-phala-tyaga, not karma-tyaga, is what tyaga means for the non-knower. He expounds both camps with unusual care: the Sankhya-Mimamsaka split on himsa in ritual action reduces to a question of whether the general prohibition 'na himsyat sarva bhutani' overrides specific shastric injunctions for sacrificial slaying. Both positions have shastric grounding; the chapter will resolve.