Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 3, Verse 37: Krishna to Arjuna — Karma-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Know this: kāma (desire) is the sole root-enemy — when obstructed it mutates into krodha (anger), yet both are one movement. It is born of rajas (the quality of restless agitation) and hence fuels further rajas, dragging the jīva (individual self) into the cycle of servitude and lamentation. In this saṃsāra (conditioned existence), recognize kāma as the singular adversary — mahāśana (the great devourer) and mahāpāpmā (the great sin-generator) — so that its removal clears the ground for jñāna (liberating knowledge).

  divergence: Śaṅkara: 'sa eṣa kāmaḥ pratihataḥ kenacit krodhatvena pariṇamate' — obstructed desire transforms into anger; and 'kāmo hi udbhūtaḥ rajaḥ pravartayan puruṣaṃ pravartayati' — desire, once arisen, sets rajas in motion and thereby sets the person in motion.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  This kāma — born of prior saṃskāras (deep impressions) and nourished by śabdādi-viṣayas (objects of the senses beginning with sound) — is the mahāśana (great devourer) that drags the jñāna-yogi away from Bhagavān at every turn. When its forward movement is checked, it becomes krodha and drives the person to hiṃsā (violence); thus kāma and krodha are one rajo-born obstruction to kainkarya (loving service). Recognize this innate enemy of jñāna-yoga and expel it so that the bhakta (devotee) may turn fully toward Bhagavān.

  divergence: Rāmānuja: 'rājasaṃ sahajam jñāna-yoga-virodhinam vairiṇam viddhi' — this naturally rajo-born entity is the inherent adversary of the entire path of jñāna-yoga.

• Madhvadvaita

  Kāma is the forceful activator (balavan pravartaka) of all wrong action; krodha is nothing but kāma in a second form, as established in 2.62 — 'from kāma, krodha is born.' Even anger arising from insult to a guru is, on examination, rooted in the desire that the guru not be insulted — so there is no krodha without an antecedent kāma. Being mahāpāpmā (the cause of great sins including brahma-hatyā) and the opponent of all puruṣārthas (the four human ends), this enemy of the dependent jīva must be known and surrendered to Hari's will.

  divergence: Madhva: 'yatra gurunindādi nimittaḥ krodhaḥ tatra api bhakti-nimitta-anindā-kāma-nimitta eva' — even anger over a guru's insult is rooted in the desire that the guru not be dishonoured.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Kāma is the avatar of rāga (attachment) — the icchā-svarūpa (the very form of wanting) that precedes all activity; krodha is kāma's own transformation when its motion is blocked, the avatar of dveṣa (aversion). Though krodha is arguably tamo-born, since tamas is always secondary as instrument of rajas, the verse rightly names rajas as the root. In Arjuna's case specifically, the kāma named here is the desire for his kinsmen's lives — viddhy enam vairiṇam (know this one as the enemy) is the imperative directed at that very attachment.

  divergence: Vallabha: 'rāgapūrvāvatāraḥ kāmaḥ tattadicchāsvarūpa evātra hetuḥ pravartakaḥ dveṣapūrvāvatāraś ca tatpariṇāmabhūtaḥ krodha eva' — kāma is the rāga-avatar, krodha the dveṣa-avatar of the same force.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  The question 'by what is one impelled to sin?' finds its answer here: kāma alone — and krodha is not a separate entity but kāma itself when obstructed and transformed. That kāma was listed earlier alongside krodha (3.34 etc.) was provisional; now they are unified. Being mahāśana (insatiably hungry, durgama — impossible to fill), no treaty by dāna (gift) is possible with it; being mahāpāpmā (fierce and terrible), no treaty by sāman (conciliation) works either — it must be killed, by the method Kṛṣṇa will shortly prescribe.

  divergence: Śrīdhara: 'krodho'pyeṣa eva kāma eva kenacit pratihataḥ krodhātmanā pariṇamate... mahāśanaḥ durgūra ityarthaḥ na ca sāmnā saṃdhātuṃ śakyaḥ yato mahāpāpmā atyugraḥ' — kāma is insatiable and too fierce for any treaty; it must be destroyed.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  The śruti itself declares 'kāmamaya evāyaṃ puruṣaḥ' (the person is constituted of kāma) — so Kṛṣṇa's identification here is not merely psychological but ontological: the empirical person is kāma-formed, and this kāma, arising from rajas, itself sets rajas in motion, creating a self-reinforcing bondage. The four classical strategies — sāman, dāna, bheda, daṇḍa — are enumerated only to show that the first three are impossible against this mahāśana (insatiably hungry) mahāpāpmā; only daṇḍa (forceful eradication) remains, which is the sāttvika discipline that first diminishes rajas and thereby starves kāma at its root.

  divergence: Madhusūdana: 'mahad aśanam asya iti mahāśanaḥ... ato na dānena saṃdhātuṃ śakyaḥ nāpi sāmabhedābhyām yato mahāpāpmā atyugraḥ... sāttvikya vṛttyā rajasi kṣīṇe so'pi kṣīyata' — only sāttvika discipline starves rajas and thereby destroys kāma.