Chapter 18 · Verse 8·Spoken by Krishna
दुःखमित्येव यत्कर्म कायक्लेशभयात्त्यजेत्।स कृत्वा राजसं त्यागं नैव त्यागफलं लभेत्
duḥkham ity eva yat karma kāya-kleśha-bhayāt tyajet sa kṛitvā rājasaṁ tyāgaṁ naiva tyāga-phalaṁ labhet
Whoever gives up an action merely because it is painful, out of fear of bodily strain, performs relinquishment rooted in rajas. He does not gain the fruit of relinquishment.
Word by Word
Saved for this reading session
Three movements · tap a label to switch
Sanskrit recitation by Swami Brahmānanda
Audio from the Gītā Supersite, IIT Kanpur
Synthesis · a glossed leaf
machine-assisted draft, pending review
Convergence
his verse defines the second, middling kind of giving-up, called rajasic, after the previous verse described the lowest, tamasic kind. The Sanskrit word tyaga means relinquishment or renunciation; the three gunas (the three basic qualities of nature, sattva or clarity, rajas or restless activity, and tamas or dullness) color even the way a person renounces. Here the mark of rajasic relinquishment is simple: a person drops an action only because it is duhkha, that is, painful or troublesome, and out of kaya-klesha-bhaya, fear of bodily strain or hardship. He looks at the work, judges it as nothing but trouble, and turns away from it to spare the body.
Braided from 13 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Sant Jñāneśvar · Lokmanya Tilak · Swami Ramsukhdas
The reason this giving-up is classed as rajasic is that its very cause is rajas. Pain and the restless aversion to discomfort belong to the quality of rajas; so when a person renounces because the work hurts or wearies the body, the motive itself is rajasic, and the act takes its color from the motive. Several commentators stress that the action being dropped is obligatory or enjoined work, the daily and life-stage duties that are meant to be done; abandoning such work merely to keep the body comfortable is what makes the relinquishment go wrong.
Braided from 8 commentators
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Rāmānujācārya · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Swami Ramsukhdas
The hard result is stated plainly: such a person does not gain the fruit of relinquishment at all. The commentators are nearly unanimous that this fruit is liberation, reached through true sattvic relinquishment, which several of them describe as jnana-nistha, standing firm in knowledge, or as the purity of mind (citta-shuddhi) that ripens into that knowledge. The outward appearance of giving-up is there, but the inner fruit never comes, because the work was dropped for the wrong reason. One source warns that by this very rajasic relinquishment the person even reaches a fitting hell rather than freedom.
Braided from 14 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Sant Jñāneśvar · Swami Sivananda · Lokmanya Tilak · Swami Ramsukhdas
What separates this rajasic giving-up from the earlier tamasic one is the presence or absence of discernment. In the tamasic case there is delusion or no viveka (discernment) at all; the person simply fails to see the work as a duty. In the rajasic case discernment may well be present: the person knows the action is his duty and knows he is able to do it, yet he holds the body's comfort dearer than the duty and will not endure the strain. So the rajasic renouncer is not deluded about what should be done; he is governed by fear of bodily hardship, and that fear, not delusion, is the defining flaw.
Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Swami Ramsukhdas · Sant Jñāneśvar
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
These commentators read the verse against the background of knowledge as the sole means of liberation. The true, sattvic relinquishment that does bear fruit is the giving up of all action that rests on knowledge, and its fruit is liberation, described as jnana-nistha, firm standing in knowledge, or the purity of mind that leads there. The rajasic renouncer fails precisely because he gives up the deeper requirement: he turns from obligatory work out of bodily fear rather than letting that work purify the mind so knowledge can dawn. One of these sources adds that he gains not liberation but a fitting hell, and another notes the deeper root of the error is failing to recognize that the self is no agent at all.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Viśiṣṭādvaita
These commentators read the rajasic renouncer as one who twists scripture to suit his fear. Action is, by an ordered succession, a means to liberation, but because it requires gathering materials that are painful to obtain and demands much toil that distresses the body, the renouncer reasons, 'one should strive at the practice of knowledge alone,' and abandons the great sacrifices and the duties of the life-stages. This holds the meaning of scripture not as it truly stands, which is why it is rajasic, like the understanding that 'knows not as it truly is.' Crucially, one of these sources insists that action does not by any visible mechanism produce the mind's serenity; it does so only by way of the Lord's grace, so to drop action thinking knowledge can be reached by toil alone is to mistake how liberation actually comes.
Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika
Śuddhādvaita
These commentators frame the failure in terms of grace and devotion to the Lord. The obligatory act is, by an unbroken chain, a means to release, and to reject it merely out of disgust at bodily trouble is itself a refusal of grace, so the inward poise that grace prepares can never mature. One source adds that renunciation rightly rooted in attachment to the Lord must be undertaken for the Lord's sake; the rajasic renouncer instead treats the act as an obstacle to ordinary, rajasic happiness and casts it off from bodily fear. For this school the fruit that is lost is named directly as the Lord's grace and what follows from it, not liberation in the abstract.
Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama
Bhakti
These commentators emphasize that the missing fruit is jnana-nistha, the standing in knowledge that true relinquishment was meant to ripen into. One source locates the root error in the failure to know that the self is no agent: deciding that perpetual work is mere pain and dropping it from bodily fear is rajasic because pain itself belongs to rajas. The other paints the scene vividly: an action feels hard only at the start, like a bitter herb or the bother of cooking before a meal; the rajasic person, competent and aware of his duty, begins the work but, terrified by a little discomfort, drops it half-done as one drops a scorching-hot thing, reasoning that he should not put his precious body to hardship. Just as accidental drowning is no holy self-immersion, such fear-driven dropping is an evil counterfeit of true relinquishment; only the dawn of Self-knowledge, which swallows all action and ignorance as morning light swallows the stars, is real relinquishment and bears the fruit of emancipation.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Sant Jñāneśvar
Modern
These commentators read the verse as a practical, examinable warning. One names the lost fruit as moksha, the reward of renouncing all actions accompanied by wisdom, and stresses that religious duties demand determination and persistence: a person may begin an action and abandon it before completion because of some difficulty or physical suffering. Another puts the test sharply: the mark of rajasic tyaga is holding the body's comfort as the determining standard. Discernment may be present and the person may know his duty, but he will not endure the kaya-klesha, the bodily strain, and so what looks like giving-up is really only kaya-bhaya, fear of the body. The seeker is told to test his own renunciations against this verse: if a duty was let slip because it was uncomfortable, what occurred was not tyaga at all.
Swami Sivananda · Lokmanya Tilak · Swami Ramsukhdas
A Seeker Asks
If an action genuinely exhausts or harms my body, how is it wrong to step back from it, and where exactly is the line between rajasic avoidance and sensible care?
The verse is not condemning rest or reasonable care of the body; it is naming a particular motive. What it calls rajasic is dropping an obligatory duty for one reason only, that the work is painful and the body would rather not bear the strain. The fault lies in the motive, because pain and the restless flinching from it belong to the quality of rajas, so an act of renunciation driven by that flinching takes its color from rajas.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Dhanapati Sūri
The clearest line is drawn by discernment and what you make your standard. The rajasic renouncer is not ignorant; he often knows full well that the action is his duty and that he is able to do it. The problem is that he makes the body's comfort the deciding standard and refuses to endure the discomfort. So the test is not whether a task is hard, but whether you are setting it down because it is genuinely not yours to do, or only because it is uncomfortable.
Swami Ramsukhdas · Śrī Ānandagiri · Sant Jñāneśvar
It matters because the whole point of right action is to ripen the mind. Several commentators say the fruit that fear-driven renunciation forfeits is liberation, reached through firm standing in knowledge and the purity of mind that duty itself prepares. Some add that hardship usually feels heaviest only at the start, like a bitter herb or the bother of cooking before a meal; to flee at that first difficulty is to drop the work half-done and lose exactly the inner ripening it was meant to bring.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Rāmānujācārya · Sant Jñāneśvar
Contemplation
Here is a quiet test you can carry into your own life. The next time you find yourself setting down a duty, pause and ask honestly why. Is it because the work is truly not yours to do, or simply because it is uncomfortable for the body? The mark of rajasic giving-up is subtle: you may know perfectly well what should be done, yet you hold the body's comfort as the deciding standard and will not endure the strain. If a task has been let slip only because it tires or troubles the body, what has happened is not real relinquishment but kaya-bhaya, plain fear of the body wearing the costume of renunciation. Watch for that disguise. The outward act of dropping the work can look identical either way; only the inner reason tells the truth, and only the right reason bears fruit.
Sit with this · Swami Ramsukhdas
Pull up a chair.
You have come to sit with this verse. When you are ready to hear the translators and the commentators in full, tap a name in The seating.