Arjuna asks for the truth of renunciation and relinquishment, each one told apart.
At the threshold of the last chapter, Arjuna brings one exact question rather than a vague one: two words he has heard before, sannyasa and tyaga, and he wants each one's true nature stated on its own.
Arjuna said: I want to know, each one on its own and clearly told apart, the true nature of renunciation and of relinquishment, O Hrishikesha, slayer of Keshin.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
You are at the opening of the Gita's final chapter, where the whole teaching is gathered up and restated compactly. Arjuna's question here is the doorway into that summing-up, not a fresh topic dropped in from outside.
The teaching
Two words have run through the earlier chapters without their sense ever being fixed: renunciation and relinquishment. Arjuna has heard both, sometimes as if they meant the same thing, sometimes as if they pointed to different practices, and the matter was left doubtful. So he asks Krishna directly for the tattva, the true nature, of each. The small word 'separately' carries the real weight of the question. He is not asking for a loose pairing of two near-synonyms. He wants the precise difference, each term marked off from the other, whether they turn out to differ sharply, like two different things, or finally name one and the same thing under two labels. Either way, he wants clarity rather than a blur. His three names for Krishna are read as meaningful rather than decorative. Hrishikesha, lord of every sense, can supply whatever is needed to dispel the doubt. Keshi-nishudana, slayer of the demon Keshin who once took the shape of a great horse, can destroy this obstacle just as he destroyed that one. Mahabaho, the mighty-armed, is simply capable of expounding the whole matter without remainder. Several readings also hear, underneath the plain question, a live worry: that two things the Gita has already taught, giving up action entirely in some places, working while releasing only the fruit in others, might seem to pull against each other. A compassionate and all-knowing teacher would not leave a real contradiction standing, so Arjuna's careful question becomes the occasion for removing it.
The doubt that rises
If renunciation and relinquishment both just mean letting go of something, why does it matter so much which one is meant, and what could actually turn on the difference between giving up an action and giving up only its fruit?
Where the paths divide
Read as the question the coming verses will actually resolve.
What survives of Shankara's comment at this exact verse is comparatively brief, mostly a note on the Keshin epithet and the plain naming of the two terms to be distinguished. His fuller grading of renunciation, by fitness and by the three qualities, belongs to his reading of the verses just ahead. Read honestly, this opening verse is best taken as the question posed, with the developed Advaita answer still to come.
Read as a scripture-grounded either-or.
Ramanuja anchors Arjuna's doubt in texts already known to him: some Upanishadic passages name relinquishment, others name renunciation, as ways to immortality and freedom. Given that both are already named as paths, Arjuna's question becomes sharply posed, are these two words of different meaning, in which case each own-form must be told apart, or one meaning under two names, in which case that single form must still be stated with precision.
Read as summation first, detail deferred.
The material available from Madhva at this verse is a brief salutation and the claim that the chapter gathers up in brief the whole means already taught. He does not, in what survives here, work out the actual content of sannyasa against tyaga; that fuller treatment belongs to his comments on the verses that follow. Read plainly, this is the frame, not yet the argument.
Read spare and close to the letter of the text.
Abhinavagupta's surviving note stays with what the Gita has already said in its own words: two figures were named side by side earlier, one who gives up, and one who renounces and is called a yogin. Arjuna, having heard both named, now wants their difference explained. This is a textual, verse-tracking observation rather than a developed doctrine of the self's own freedom; any extension toward that larger Kashmir Shaiva picture would be a conditional reading beyond what the fragment itself states.
Read as reconciling two counsels that seem to clash.
Sridhara hears real tension behind the question. In some verses the Gita has taught giving up works entirely; in others it has taught doing works while releasing only their fruit. He reads a supremely kind and all-knowing teacher as unwilling to leave two counsels standing in real contradiction, so Arjuna's question becomes the request that sets up their reconciliation, rather than a request for one counsel to be discarded.
Read as one exact question inside a technical sequence.
Madhusudana places this question directly after the prior chapter's threefold sorting of doers of action by their faith, food, sacrifice, austerity, and gift. On his reading, that same threefold sorting must now be applied to renunciation, and Arjuna's question is aimed specifically at the sense of 'giving up' still available to a person who has not yet awakened to reality, while also asking how relinquishment differs from it.
The schools do not agree on exactly what Arjuna's doubt is about. Some read it as a question of scope and grading, resolved by a threefold scheme still to come. Some read it as a scripture-grounded either-or about two named paths. Some read the surviving material here as too thin to settle much at all, with the real content deferred to later verses. And some read an unspoken worry underneath the plain question, that two earlier teachings might clash. This page leaves that open, the way the verse itself does, since the answer belongs to what follows.
A question to carry
Where in your own life have you heard two pieces of guidance that seemed to pull apart, and have you asked, as carefully as Arjuna does here, for each one to be told to you separately, rather than settling for a comfortable blur?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
May your own doubts be asked as exactly as this one is asked, each term named, each difference sought, and may whatever in you governs the senses supply the points you would not have known to ask for.
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 verse opens the eighteenth chapter, where the Gita gathers up its whole teaching in one place, and Arjuna's question becomes the doorway into that summary rather than a fresh side-topic.
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.
This closing chapter gathers up the whole teaching, restating compactly what the earlier chapters taught at length and in scattered verses.
Across Advaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Madhva · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Madhva, and 1 others’ words
This verse opens the Gita's final chapter, which the commentators broadly read as the text's own summing-up: what the earlier seventeen chapters taught at length and in scattered places, chapter eighteen restates compactly, gathering the whole teaching's import into one place. Arjuna's question is not a side-topic. It is the doorway into that summary.
Arjuna asks for the tattva, the real form, of two words, renunciation and relinquishment, because their sense had never been pinned down.
Across Advaita, ViśiṣṭādvaitaŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 1 others’ words
Arjuna asks Krishna to settle the tattva, the true nature, of two words: sannyasa, renunciation, and tyaga, relinquishment. Both terms had already appeared here and there in the earlier chapters, but always loosely, never with their exact sense fixed. The question exists because a real doubt remained.
Hear the weight in his small word, separately: he wants each form marked off and told on its own, not blurred into a vague single idea.
Across Viśiṣṭādvaita, AdvaitaRāmānuja · MadhusūdanaIn Rāmānuja and Madhusūdana’s words
The word 'separately' carries the weight of the request. Arjuna does not want the two terms blurred into a single vague idea. He wants each one's own form told apart from the other, whether they turn out to differ sharply or, in the end, name one and the same thing.
His three names for Krishna are not ornamental; each names a capacity fit for settling exactly this kind of doubt.
Across Bhakti, AdvaitaŚrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śrīdhara and Madhusūdana’s words
Arjuna's three names for Krishna, Hrishikesha, Keshi-nishudana, Mahabaho, are read as meaningful rather than ornamental. The lord of the senses can supply what is needed to resolve the doubt; the slayer of the horse-demon Keshin can destroy this obstacle as he destroyed that one; the mighty-armed one is simply capable of expounding the whole matter.
Several readings hear an unspoken worry behind the question, that two earlier counsels might clash, and treat the coming answer as the resolving of that worry.
Across Bhakti, Kashmir ŚaivaŚrīdhara · AbhinavaguptaIn Śrīdhara and Abhinavagupta’s words
Several readings hear an implicit worry behind the question: that two pieces of the Gita's own teaching, giving up action entirely and giving up only its fruit, might seem to pull in different directions. Whatever the precise resolution, the readings agree that the compassionate teacher would not leave a real contradiction standing, and that Arjuna's question is the occasion for removing it.
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 anchors the question in scripture: Upanishadic texts name both relinquishment and renunciation as paths to immortality and freedom. He reads Arjuna's doubt as sharply either-or, two distinct forms or one form under two names, and either way wants the precision that the word 'separately' demands.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
What survives of Madhva here is a brief salutation and the framing claim that this chapter gathers up in brief the whole means already taught. He does not, in the material available, work out the content of sannyasa versus tyaga at this verse; that fuller treatment sits in his comments further on.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara hears two counsels in tension: complete renunciation of works taught in some verses, working with the fruit released taught in others. He reads Arjuna's question as asking how a supremely kind and all-knowing teacher's two counsels can stand together, and frames the coming answer as a reconciliation rather than a contradiction.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Madhusudana places the question in a technical sequence following the prior chapter's threefold sorting of doers by faith, food, sacrifice, austerity, and gift. He distinguishes three senses of 'giving up' already used in the Gita and reads Arjuna as asking specifically about the third, the loose sense available to the still-undiscerning person, while also asking how tyaga differs from it.
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
Before you read further in this chapter, sit for a moment with your own version of Arjuna's question. Where in your life have you heard two pieces of good advice, work harder or let go, hold the outcome or release it, and felt them pull apart? Do not rush to resolve it. Just notice the tension clearly, the way Arjuna names it clearly, before asking for the answer.
Carry your own unresolved questions the way Arjuna carries his here: named exactly, not left as a vague unease, and brought to whatever in you is fit to answer them.
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
his verse opens the Gita's final chapter, which the commentators broadly read as the text's own summing-up: what the earlier seventeen chapters taught at length and in scattered places, chapter eighteen restates compactly, gathering the whole teaching's import into one place. Arjuna's question is not a side-topic. It is the doorway into that summary.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Arjuna asks Krishna to settle the tattva, the true nature, of two words: sannyasa, renunciation, and tyaga, relinquishment. Both terms had already appeared here and there in the earlier chapters, but always loosely, never with their exact sense fixed. The question exists because a real doubt remained.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The word 'separately' carries the weight of the request. Arjuna does not want the two terms blurred into a single vague idea. He wants each one's own form told apart from the other, whether they turn out to differ sharply or, in the end, name one and the same thing.
Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Arjuna's three names for Krishna, Hrishikesha, Keshi-nishudana, Mahabaho, are read as meaningful rather than ornamental. The lord of the senses can supply what is needed to resolve the doubt; the slayer of the horse-demon Keshin can destroy this obstacle as he destroyed that one; the mighty-armed one is simply capable of expounding the whole matter.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Several readings hear an implicit worry behind the question: that two pieces of the Gita's own teaching, giving up action entirely and giving up only its fruit, might seem to pull in different directions. Whatever the precise resolution, the readings agree that the compassionate teacher would not leave a real contradiction standing, and that Arjuna's question is the occasion for removing it.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
The extant Shankara material at this exact verse is thin, mostly the note on the Keshin epithet and the naming of the two words to be distinguished. His own developed grading of renunciation, into what lies beyond the three qualities and what remains within them, belongs to his comments on the verses that follow, not to this opening question itself.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja anchors the question in scripture: Upanishadic texts name both relinquishment and renunciation as paths to immortality and freedom. He reads Arjuna's doubt as sharply either-or, two distinct forms or one form under two names, and either way wants the precision that the word 'separately' demands.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
What survives of Madhva here is a brief salutation and the framing claim that this chapter gathers up in brief the whole means already taught. He does not, in the material available, work out the content of sannyasa versus tyaga at this verse; that fuller treatment sits in his comments further on.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta's surviving comment stays close to the text's own words: the Gita has already spoken of 'the one who gives up' and 'the one who renounces' as two figures side by side, and Arjuna now wants to know their difference. This is a spare, text-tracking note, not a developed Kashmir Shaiva metaphysics of freedom; any extension toward the self's own spontaneity would be a conditional reading beyond what the fragment states.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara hears two counsels in tension: complete renunciation of works taught in some verses, working with the fruit released taught in others. He reads Arjuna's question as asking how a supremely kind and all-knowing teacher's two counsels can stand together, and frames the coming answer as a reconciliation rather than a contradiction.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Madhusudana places the question in a technical sequence following the prior chapter's threefold sorting of doers by faith, food, sacrifice, austerity, and gift. He distinguishes three senses of 'giving up' already used in the Gita and reads Arjuna as asking specifically about the third, the loose sense available to the still-undiscerning person, while also asking how tyaga differs from it.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If renunciation and relinquishment both just mean 'giving something up,' why does the exact difference between them matter enough for Arjuna to ask for it this carefully?
Because the two words had been used loosely across many earlier chapters, sometimes as if interchangeable, sometimes as if pointing to different practices, and an unresolved doubt of that kind is exactly the kind of thing worth asking about rather than guessing at.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya
Because, on more than one reading, real practical guidance is riding on the answer: whether you are being asked to give up action itself or only your claim on its fruit is not a small difference, it changes what your actual conduct looks like tomorrow.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Because a question asked in order to live by the answer, not merely to file it away as doctrine, deserves exactness. Arjuna is shown here as the kind of listener whose eagerness is practical, and precision is what practical eagerness actually needs.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Contemplation
Before you read further in this chapter, sit for a moment with your own version of Arjuna's question. Where in your life have you heard two pieces of good advice, work harder or let go, hold the outcome or release it, and felt them pull apart? Do not rush to resolve it. Just notice the tension clearly, the way Arjuna names it clearly, before asking for the answer.
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.