Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 18, Verse 3: Krishna to Arjuna — Mokṣa-Sannyāsa-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Sankara draws a strict boundary: the debate here concerns only those still under karmic qualification (adhikara), not the jnana-nishtha sannyasi who has already renounced all action through knowledge. One camp of pandits, following the Sankhya view, holds that all karma (action) is to be abandoned because it is bandha-hetu (cause of bondage), just as raga (desire) is discarded. The opposing camp holds that yajna (sacrifice), dana (gift), and tapas (austerity) must not be renounced — but Sankara insists this entire debate is only about karma-phala-tyaga (abandonment of fruit), not the supreme renunciation of all action by one who has realized the self.

  divergence: Sankara's extended commentary distinguishes adhikrta-karmins from jnana-nishtha sannyasins; the latter are explicitly excluded from this debate. Source: panel_commentary_devanagari present.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Ramanuja identifies the two camps precisely: the Kapila-following Sankhyas and some Vedic interpreters who, treating all yajna and karma as bondage-causing like a defect (dosa), recommend complete renunciation for the mumuksu (liberation-seeker). Against them stand other pandits who declare that yajna, dana, and tapas-karma must not be abandoned. Ramanuja's framing implies that karma as kainkarya (service) to Bhagavan carries a fundamentally different status from karma performed for self-interest — the question of abandonment does not arise where action is pure devotion.

  divergence: Ramanuja names Kapila-vaidika school and cites mumuksu-context explicitly. Source: panel_commentary_devanagari present.

• Madhvadvaita

  Madhva reads the verse as a resolved debate, not an open one: because the first camp is called 'manishinah' (the wise), even their position must be taken seriously, but the intended meaning is phala-tyaga (renunciation of fruit) rather than kriya-tyaga (renunciation of the act). The verse's very next teaching ('yasthu karma-phala-tyagi') confirms this — Madhva treats both camps as pointing toward the same Hari-oriented resolution, where the jiva's dependent action continues but its fruit is surrendered as worship.

  divergence: Madhva cites BG 18.11 ('yasthu karma-phala-tyagi') as confirmatory. Source: panel_commentary_devanagari present.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  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 (violence) is to be abandoned — their insight is praised by the verse's very use of 'manishinah'. The Mimamsakas correctly insist that yajna-karma mandated by sruti cannot be relinquished — they too partially honor the Veda. Both fall short of the full vision that all action is Krsna's lila-prasada: the question of abandonment dissolves when the performer recognizes that Krsna's grace is the only agent.

  divergence: Vallabha praises both camps as 'bhrantah api ekamsatah samicina' (even the confused are partially correct). Source: panel_commentary_devanagari present.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Sridhara Svami reads the verse as stage-setting for the definitive position — that only karma-phala-tyaga (renunciation of fruit), not karma-tyaga (renunciation of action), is what 'tyaga' means for the non-knower. He expounds both camps with unusual care: the Sankhya-Mimamsaka split on himsa (violence) in ritual action reduces to a question of whether the general prohibition 'na himsyat sarva-bhutani' overrides the specific injunction to sacrifice — his answer follows Mimamsa: the specific vidhi displaces the general, so nityakarma (regular obligatory action) like yajna is not to be abandoned.

  divergence: Sridhara gives full Mimamsa samanya-visesa analysis of himsadosa. Note: Sridhara's text is entirely clean Sanskrit — no HTML artifacts in this payload.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusudana Sarasvati frames the verse as the opening of the second question's answer, where he must resolve the threefold sense of 'sannyasa' and 'tyaga'. Two interpretations of 'dosavat' (like a defect): either all karma is dosa because it is bandha-hetu (cause of bondage), or karma is to be abandoned as one abandons raga — but only by those yet to develop the desire for knowledge (vividisat). The second camp's position — that yajna, dana, tapas are not to be abandoned — is tied to antahkarana-suddhi (purification of the inner instrument) as a prerequisite for knowledge. His synthesis anticipates the sattvika-tyaga resolution: the Bhakta acting without fruit is already practicing the tyaga Krishna will endorse.

  divergence: Madhusudana explicitly names 'dvitiyah paksah karma-adhikarinam antahkarana-suddhi-dvara vividisa-utpatti-artham'. Source: panel_commentary_devanagari present.