Naming the act 'Tat,' the seeker performs it fully and lets its fruit go where it will.
Having taken up the word 'Om,' Krishna now takes up 'Tat.' The rites do not shrink; only the inward claim on what they yield is released, and two of the six voices on this page are honestly thin at this exact verse.
Uttering the word 'Tat,' a name of Brahman, those who seek liberation perform their acts of sacrifice, austerity, and giving without aiming at any fruit.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
You have just met 'Om,' the first of three sacred words Krishna is unfolding as the chapter closes. Now comes 'Tat,' the second, and you watch what happens when a seeker who longs for freedom speaks it over sacrifice, austerity, and giving.
The teaching
When you long for liberation, Krishna says, you perform your many acts of sacrifice, austerity, and giving, and you utter 'Tat' over them. 'Tat' simply means 'That.' It is a well-known name of Brahman, the reality beyond every describable thing, the same 'That' behind the great saying 'That thou art.' Shankara reads the word this way and adds little beyond it: this is a seeker's word, marking acts done without the ordinary hope of return, and he moves on to the third word, 'Sat,' without lingering. Ramanuja widens the frame: alongside sacrifice, austerity, and giving he places the study of the Veda, and he insists these remain the very means of reaching Brahman, not gestures emptied of consequence; because they lead to Brahman, they rightly bear Brahman's own name. Madhusudana narrows the focus inward: the point of releasing the fruit is to purify the inner organ, clearing the mind so that it becomes fit, later, for the knowledge that alone liberates. Sridhara pairs the two syllables as remedies for two different lacks: where 'Om' completed what was missing in rule, 'Tat' completes what was missing in dispassion, and the word does not merely describe a detachment already achieved; it produces that very detachment as it is spoken, cleansing the citta and drawing the doer into the liberation-seeker's own disposition. Two of the six voices gathered here deserve an honest caveat rather than false confidence. Madhva's own surviving comment on this exact verse is a single terse line, renouncing only the intention that the fruit be his own; what more can be said, drawn from his later sub-commentator Jayatirtha, is clearly that scholar's own extension, not a recovered fragment of Madhva's words. And Abhinavagupta's extant commentary treats this verse together with four others, 17.23 through 17.27, as one continuous passage; what is drawn from it here, that 'Tat' is a pronoun naming only the general and so cannot fix on any particular fruit, belongs to that shared passage rather than to a comment written for 17.25 alone.
The doubt that rises
If the seeker still performs the full rite of sacrifice, austerity, and giving, and releases only the fruit, what is actually left different in the doing itself? And when a source is this thin, as with Madhva here, how much can honestly be inferred before the inference becomes invention?
Where the paths divide
Read as a name spoken over the act, with purification as its stated work.
Shankara names 'Tat' as Brahman, spoken over sacrifice, austerity, and giving performed without aim at their fruit; his comment here is brief, pointing forward to the next word rather than expanding at length. Madhusudana carries the thought further: the release of fruit purifies the inner organ, and the word itself binds the seeker's attention to the great identity 'That thou art,' so that this verse prepares the ground for direct knowledge without yet being that knowledge itself.
Read as a real discipline, undertaken by a named class, in pursuit of Brahman.
Ramanuja specifies sacrifice, austerity, giving, and the study of the Veda as disciplines carried out by the men of the three twice-born classes who long for liberation. His governing claim: these acts are themselves the means of reaching Brahman, and it is exactly because they lead there that they rightly bear the word that names Brahman. Nothing about the rites shrinks in his reading; what shrinks is only the craving for a private return.
Read honestly as a thin source, with its extension clearly labeled.
Madhva's own words that survive at this verse are a single line: the act is done without the intention that its fruit be his own. This page will not manufacture a fuller Madhva paragraph where none is preserved. What can be added, and is added here only as the later scholar Jayatirtha's own gloss, is that 'Tat' applies to the rites just as it applies to Brahman, and the fruit renounced is specifically what the Veda itself promises, heaven and the rest.
Read from a passage shared across five verses, not one written for 17.25 alone.
Abhinavagupta's surviving commentary covers 17.23 through 17.27 as a single unit. Within it, he calls 'Tat' a pronoun that touches only the general and never the particular, so that it forecloses aiming at any one fixed fruit; a rite done with the settled thought 'this must be done,' and no fixed aim, does not bind. A further reading, where 'Tat' names the self's own freedom of will already at play in the act, is offered here only as a clearly flagged extension of that passage, not as words fixed to this verse.
Read as a word that completes dispassion, and produces what it names.
Sridhara treats 'Om' and 'Tat' as remedies for two different lacks: 'Om' completed what was missing in correct rule, and 'Tat' completes what was missing in dispassion. For him the word is not a mere label on an act already detached; by the route of cleansing the citta, it actively draws the doer out of the resolve for fruit and into the very disposition of one who seeks release.
Read as a claim about inner mechanism, drawn honestly from what the sources state.
Taken together, Madhusudana and Sridhara describe a real psychological operation: the rites of sacrifice, austerity, and giving continue exactly as before, in full effort, while the habit of expecting a private return is what gets retrained and cleansed. The discipline is not a doctrinal label placed over an unchanged mind; it is offered as an actual purification of that mind.
All six voices agree the rite continues while the claim on its fruit is released. They differ on what that release accomplishes, whether it purifies toward a later knowledge, is itself the means to Brahman, marks a dependent seeker's due renunciation, points to a freedom already present, or completes a lack in dispassion. And two of the six, Madhva and Abhinavagupta, are represented here from thin or shared sources rather than full independent readings of this verse; this page leaves both the doctrinal question and the honest limits of the sources open rather than resolving either.
A question to carry
When you perform a demanding task today and genuinely release your claim on what it returns to you, what actually changes in how you do the work itself, and what, if anything, still needs a name like 'Tat' spoken over it?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
So take up the work in front of you, perform it in full, and let its fruit go exactly where it has always belonged, beyond your grasp and beyond your need to claim it.
Each school is voiced from the commentators named above. Their full words, every translation, and where the schools agree and differ wait in the reading desk just below. Open the commentary desk.
This is the second panel in the chapter's closing triad of sacred words, Om, Tat, Sat, each showing how an utterance consecrates the act spoken over.
Where they agreethe convergence
Across schools and centuries the commentators come to the same ground. These are the points they share, and the voices that hold each one.
'Tat' names Brahman, spoken over sacrifice, austerity, and giving, exactly as 'Om' was spoken over the same acts in the verse before.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhusūdana · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
The verse takes up the second of the three sacred words in the formula 'Om Tat Sat.' Having spoken of 'Om' in the prior verse, Krishna now says that those who long for liberation perform their acts of sacrifice, austerity, and giving after uttering 'Tat,' a well-known name of Brahman, the reality beyond every describable thing.
What is renounced is a single inward intention: that the fruit of the act should be one's own, not the act, and not its full effort.
Across Advaita, Dvaita, ViśiṣṭādvaitaŚaṅkara · Madhva · Rāmānuja · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Madhva, and 2 others’ words
The decisive phrase is the renunciation of the fruit: the seeker performs the act without aiming at its result, without the inward intention that its reward should belong to him. Madhva states this with the greatest economy of all: the act is done without the thought, let the fruit of that be mine.
Madhusudana reads the renunciation as purifying the inner organ, readying the seeker for the knowledge that finally liberates.
Across Advaita, BhaktiMadhusūdana · ŚrīdharaIn Madhusūdana and Śrīdhara’s words
This release of the fruit is read as purifying rather than merely permissive. Madhusudana names it work done for the purity of the inner organ; Sridhara calls it the route by which the citta is cleansed and the doer is drawn out of craving and into the very disposition of one who seeks freedom.
Sridhara reads 'Tat' as completing what dispassion lacked, the word itself drawing the doer into the disposition of one who seeks freedom.
Across Viśiṣṭādvaita, AdvaitaRāmānuja · ŚaṅkaraIn Rāmānuja and Śaṅkara’s words
The act itself is never cancelled by any of these readings. Sacrifice, austerity, and giving still happen, in full; what changes is only the inward claim laid upon what they yield. Ramanuja is explicit that these acts remain the very means by which Brahman is reached, not gestures emptied of consequence.
Where the sources thin out, as with Madhva's single surviving line and Abhinavagupta's shared passage across five verses, this page says so plainly rather than inventing a fuller voice.
Across Dvaita, Kashmir ŚaivaMadhva · AbhinavaguptaIn Madhva and Abhinavagupta’s words
Two of the six voices here rest on genuinely thin or shared source material rather than a full independent reading of this verse: Madhva's surviving comment is a single line, and Abhinavagupta's extant commentary treats 17.23 through 17.27 as one passage rather than glossing 17.25 on its own. Both are represented honestly below, without inventing a fuller confident voice the sources do not supply.
This is the shared ground; it can be carried as it is. Below is where they differ.
Where they differthe divergence
Viśiṣṭādvaita, in their fuller words
Ramanuja specifies the acts as those of the three twice-born classes and adds the study of the Veda to sacrifice, austerity, and giving. His governing logic: these acts are themselves the means of reaching Brahman, and precisely because they lead to Brahman they rightly bear Brahman's own name, 'Tat.' The word marks a real discipline undertaken by a real class of seekers, not a private inward gesture alone.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva's own surviving words here are a single line: the act is done without the intention that its fruit should be his own. Read honestly, this is a thin source; what can be added, clearly labeled as the later sub-commentator Jayatirtha's extension rather than Madhva's own words, is that 'Tat' applies to the acts exactly as it applies to Brahman, and that the fruit renounced is specifically what the Veda itself promises, heaven and the rest.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara pairs 'Om' and 'Tat' as remedies for two different lacks: where 'Om' supplied what rule lacked, 'Tat' supplies what dispassion lacked, drawing the doer out of the resolve for fruit and into the seeker's own disposition. On his reading the word does not merely describe an already-detached act; it actively produces the very inner turning it names, cleansing the citta as it is spoken.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Read together across these two voices, a modern-facing gloss stresses that this verse's discipline operates on the inner organ rather than on the outward shape of the rite: sacrifice, austerity, and giving continue exactly as before, while what is cleansed is the habit of expecting a private return. The purification is offered as a real psychological and spiritual mechanism, not only a doctrinal label.
A few questions to carry
These ask for understanding, not recall; each answer is settled by the commentary itself.
For a second sitting
Carry this with youwhat stays
Take one demanding task you have today, and before you begin it, silently name the reality that will still be there after the task and its outcome have both passed. Do the task fully, with your whole attention and your whole competence, and then let the thought 'this outcome must be mine' fall away as soon as you notice it arising. This is not a diminishment of effort. It is a redirection of what the effort is actually for.
So take up your work today, name it toward what is greater than your private gain, and let go only of the claim that its fruit must return to you.
Read deeper
Everything a full study holds, folded below.
Word by word
All the commentary, woven together
The commentary, woven together
machine-assisted draft, pending review
Convergence
he verse takes up the second of the three sacred words in the formula 'Om Tat Sat.' Having spoken of 'Om' in the prior verse, Krishna now says that those who long for liberation perform their acts of sacrifice, austerity, and giving after uttering 'Tat,' a well-known name of Brahman, the reality beyond every describable thing.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
The decisive phrase is the renunciation of the fruit: the seeker performs the act without aiming at its result, without the inward intention that its reward should belong to him. Madhva states this with the greatest economy of all: the act is done without the thought, let the fruit of that be mine.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhvācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
This release of the fruit is read as purifying rather than merely permissive. Madhusudana names it work done for the purity of the inner organ; Sridhara calls it the route by which the citta is cleansed and the doer is drawn out of craving and into the very disposition of one who seeks freedom.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
The act itself is never cancelled by any of these readings. Sacrifice, austerity, and giving still happen, in full; what changes is only the inward claim laid upon what they yield. Ramanuja is explicit that these acts remain the very means by which Brahman is reached, not gestures emptied of consequence.
Rāmānujācārya · Śaṅkarācārya
Two of the six voices here rest on genuinely thin or shared source material rather than a full independent reading of this verse: Madhva's surviving comment is a single line, and Abhinavagupta's extant commentary treats 17.23 through 17.27 as one passage rather than glossing 17.25 on its own. Both are represented honestly below, without inventing a fuller confident voice the sources do not supply.
Madhvācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara treats 'Tat' as a name of Brahman spoken over the act, paired tightly with 'without aiming at the fruit'; he does not linger over an elaborate metaphysics here, but points forward to the next word, 'Sat.' Madhusudana goes further, specifying that the release of fruit purifies the inner organ and binds the seeker to the great identity-statement 'That thou art,' so that this verse's discipline prepares, without yet completing, the knowledge that alone liberates.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja specifies the acts as those of the three twice-born classes and adds the study of the Veda to sacrifice, austerity, and giving. His governing logic: these acts are themselves the means of reaching Brahman, and precisely because they lead to Brahman they rightly bear Brahman's own name, 'Tat.' The word marks a real discipline undertaken by a real class of seekers, not a private inward gesture alone.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva's own surviving words here are a single line: the act is done without the intention that its fruit should be his own. Read honestly, this is a thin source; what can be added, clearly labeled as the later sub-commentator Jayatirtha's extension rather than Madhva's own words, is that 'Tat' applies to the acts exactly as it applies to Brahman, and that the fruit renounced is specifically what the Veda itself promises, heaven and the rest.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta's extant commentary covers 17.23 to 17.27 as one passage rather than glossing 17.25 alone. Within it, 'Tat' is called a pronoun that names only the general and so cannot fix on any particular fruit; a rite done with the settled thought 'this must be done,' aiming at no fixed result, does not bind. A further, more contemplative reading of the same passage, where 'Tat' points to the self's own freedom of will, is offered here only as a clearly flagged extension, not as his stated word on this verse specifically.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara pairs 'Om' and 'Tat' as remedies for two different lacks: where 'Om' supplied what rule lacked, 'Tat' supplies what dispassion lacked, drawing the doer out of the resolve for fruit and into the seeker's own disposition. On his reading the word does not merely describe an already-detached act; it actively produces the very inner turning it names, cleansing the citta as it is spoken.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Read together across these two voices, a modern-facing gloss stresses that this verse's discipline operates on the inner organ rather than on the outward shape of the rite: sacrifice, austerity, and giving continue exactly as before, while what is cleansed is the habit of expecting a private return. The purification is offered as a real psychological and spiritual mechanism, not only a doctrinal label.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
A Seeker Asks
If I am meant to renounce every claim on the fruit, what is left to sustain my effort, and how is this different from simply ceasing to care how the work turns out?
None of these readings ask for less effort. Ramanuja keeps sacrifice, austerity, giving, and Vedic study fully intact as real disciplines; Sridhara reads the same acts as performed by a citta that has become pure. What is renounced is never the labor. It is the private expectation riding on top of the labor.
Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
What sustains the effort is the naming itself. 'Tat' gives the act a direction other than private gain: toward Brahman, on Shankara and Madhusudana's reading, or toward the Veda's own stated ends rather than any freelance reward, on the reading that can honestly be drawn from Madhva's line and its later gloss.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Madhvācārya
And the shift is inward rather than outward, which is exactly why it differs from indifference. Indifference would loosen the act itself; this loosens only the grip on what the act returns, and several readings describe this loosening as itself a cleansing, a purification that ripens the seeker rather than abandoning the work.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Contemplation
Take one demanding task you have today, and before you begin it, silently name the reality that will still be there after the task and its outcome have both passed. Do the task fully, with your whole attention and your whole competence, and then let the thought 'this outcome must be mine' fall away as soon as you notice it arising. This is not a diminishment of effort. It is a redirection of what the effort is actually for.
Sit with this · sonnet-5-authored
All the translations and commentary
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, open a tradition in the doorways below, or add a voice by name above.
Also hear this verse, tradition by tradition.