Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 18, Verse 7: Krishna to Arjuna — Mokṣa-Sannyāsa-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Obligatory action (niyata-karma), being nitya (eternally prescribed), cannot rightly be abandoned — for it purifies the ignorant aspirant and is therefore to be desired. If one abandons it, that abandonment is self-contradictory: the very act that must be performed is being discarded, which is incoherent. Such abandonment arises from moha (delusion, which is tamas), and is therefore declared tamasic — tamas and moha being one and the same darkness.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Nitya-naimittika karma — the mahayajnas and their like — cannot be abandoned, because bodily sustenance itself depends on yajnashishta-ashana (eating the remnants of sacrifice); without it, the mind cannot be purified, and without purity of mind, steady recollection and brahma-saksatkara (direct realization of Brahman) are impossible. Abandoning this karma rests on viparita-jnana (inverted knowledge) which is the produce of tamas, for tamas generates pramada (heedlessness) and moha (delusion), and it is moha that makes one see dharma as adharma.

• Madhvadvaita

  [Madhvacharya left no direct commentary on this verse. The following is inferred from his general doctrine.] The jiva, eternally distinct from and dependent on Hari, has no authority to abandon niyata-karma, which is prescribed worship (seva) owed to the Lord by right of creaturely dependence. To abandon it under the pretext of renunciation is moha — a failure to recognize one's own subordinate status — and such abandonment is therefore tamasic, rooted in the darkest misapprehension of the jiva's true nature.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Vallabha criticizes those 'kavayah' (poets, rationalist interpreters) who claim that even Vedically enjoined karma may be relinquished. He insists: among all Vedic authorities, no school ever sanctions complete abandonment of Vedically prescribed action. If one abandons vaidika-karma through moha arising from tamas, that renunciation is tamasic — for pramada and moha are both born of tamas, and such abandonment brings pratya-vaya (the sin of omission), compounding the offense.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Sridhara distinguishes sharply: kamya-karma (desire-motivated action) may rightly be abandoned because it binds, but nitya-karma (obligatory daily rites) cannot be renounced, since it leads to sattva-shuddhi (purification of the inner instrument) and thereby to moksha. If someone abandons even this purifying, mandatory action — treating the compulsory as though it were dispensable — that abandonment flows from moha alone. Since moha is tamasic in nature, this category of tyaga is declared tamasic.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusudan first establishes that kamya-karma may rightly be abandoned (it lacks the power to purify antahkarana and binds), while nitya-karma is indispensable for antahkarana-shuddhi — as Gita 6.3 confirms ('karma is the means for the muni aspiring to yoga'). He then refutes at length the Sankhya objection that nitya-karma like the jyotishtoma involves himsa: the specific Vedic injunction overrides the general prohibition, and violence that is kratu-anga (part of the sacrificial limb) is not the anartha-hetu (cause of personal harm) targeted by the general ahimsa rule. Therefore nitya-karma is undamaged, and its abandonment — whether from confusion about himsa or from laziness — is rooted in moha, which is tamas, making this tyaga tamasic.