The duty that is yours, done without clinging, without liking or aversion, and with no eye on its fruit.
Krishna gives four plain marks for telling a pure action from a driven or deluded one. The deed does not change; only the hand that holds it does.
The action that is your prescribed duty, done without clinging to it, without either liking or aversion, and by someone who does not crave its fruit: that is called sattvic.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Krishna has just sorted knowledge and the knower by the three gunas. Now he turns from what you know to what you do, opening a short run of three verses that sort action the same way. This one names the sattvic kind first, the luminous and pure, and gives it as a plain checklist.
The teaching
Four marks make an action sattvic, and each one can be tested against something you actually do. First, it is niyata, the duty properly yours, belonging to your station and your place in life, not work you have chosen simply because it pleases you. You take it up as what ought to be done. The next marks live inside you, not in the deed. The action is done without clinging, which is read chiefly as freedom from the quiet insistence that 'I am the one doing this.' It is done without attraction or aversion: not from fondness, such as love of fame, and not from hostility, such as the wish to defeat a rival. It is neither leaned toward nor away from. The last mark decides the matter. The doer does not crave the fruit. The duty itself never changes shape; what changes, and what earns it the name sattvic, is only whether the mind performing it still reaches for a particular result to come back to it. It should be said plainly that not every one of the six acaryas has left an equally full word on this verse. Madhva's surviving commentary offers no comment here at all, and Abhinavagupta's extant remark is a brief gloss on bare terms shared across three verses rather than a developed reading of this one. Both silences are reported honestly here rather than filled in with invented content.
The doubt that rises
If sattvic action means doing the duty assigned to your station, not chosen by you and with no feeling toward it, does that not make the good life passive and joyless, a matter of dull compliance?
Where the paths divide
Shankara's own extant word stays with the compact definition; Madhusudana extends it further.
Shankara names the four marks and does not, in what survives, push past them. Madhusudana adds a distinctive caution: even the sattvic doer, free of the gross pride of being 'the great sacrificer,' still carries, as long as ignorance lasts, the subtler ego that prompts the sense of being a doer and an enjoyer. Only the knower of reality, free of even that ego, stands beyond any further call to act. Read this way, sattvic action purifies the seeker; it is not yet the knower's condition.
Read as plain criteria, without folding the marks into a further claim about the Self.
Ramanuja keeps the four marks exactly as given: enjoined duty suited to your own station, freedom from the conceit of doership, action without pretence toward fame or disrepute, and no aim fixed on the fruit, performed with the simple thought that it is to be done. Read alongside his fuller teaching that such action is worship offered to the Lord, this checklist is the practical shape that worship takes.
Honestly reported: no extant comment survives from Madhva on this verse.
Madhva's commentary passes over this verse in silence, and that silence deserves to be named rather than papered over with an invented reading in his voice. What can be offered, clearly marked as extrapolation rather than his own words, is that his governing principle elsewhere, every capacity to act as a dependent competence exercised only by the Lord's sanction, would plausibly frame this fruit-free, prescribed duty as the fitting posture of a dependent being.
Honestly reported: the extant remark is a bare lexical gloss, not a developed reading.
What survives of Abhinavagupta's comment here glosses only bare terms across three verses: 'fixed' as what is to be done, with the remaining glosses belonging to the two verses that follow. No distinctive Kashmir Shaiva reading of sattvic action survives at this verse itself. On a conditional extension of his treatment elsewhere, fixed duty done without clinging might be read as action no longer forgetting its source in the self's recognized freedom, offered here as a clearly labeled possibility, not as his stated view.
Read as an offering, the marks riding on inward motive.
Sridhara walks the same four marks and adds that they are doctrinal, almost a definition, but that they ride entirely on the inward note of why the act is done. Two people can perform the identical prescribed duty, and only the quiet motive within it separates the sattvic instance from the others. Read alongside his devotional cast elsewhere, this checklist becomes the practical shape an offering to the Supreme takes in ordinary duty.
Read as a working test, drawn from the marks themselves.
Taking Madhusudana's precision about which ego is removed together with Sridhara's reminder that the marks ride on motive, not form, gives a plain four-question test: is this duty truly mine, am I gripping it, do I lean toward it or away, and do I still expect something back. The test travels past any one school, because it asks only what the verse itself asks.
The four marks are shared ground; the schools part on what the release finally serves. Advaita stays honest that a subtler doer-sense survives until knowledge itself dawns. Vishishtadvaita keeps the marks plain and reads the act as worship referred to the Lord. Bhakti locates the whole matter in inward motive. And two of the six named voices, Madhva and Abhinavagupta, have left little or nothing on record here, a silence this page keeps rather than fills in. What the fruit-free duty ultimately serves, and what, if anything, must still fall away beyond it, is left open.
A question to carry
When you take up the one task that is plainly yours today, can you tell whether you are gripping it for what it will bring you, or simply doing it because it is to be done?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
There is a task today that belongs to you. Take it up leaning neither toward it nor away, asking nothing back from it, and let the doing itself be enough.
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.
Having just sorted knowledge and the doer by the three gunas, Krishna now turns to action itself, opening the threefold division with the sattvic kind.
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 is the first of three kinds of action, sorted by the strands of nature; here are the plain marks for telling whether an act is luminous and pure.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
This verse opens a short run of three that sort action by the three gunas, the strands that color everything in nature. What is named here is sattvic action, the pure and luminous kind, and the verse gives a working checklist for it rather than an abstract description: four marks, each one testable against an actual deed.
The first mark is the work itself: not the task chosen because it pleases, but the duty set down for you, taken up simply as what ought to be done.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 1 others’ words
The first mark is that the action is niyata, enjoined and obligatory, the duty that belongs to a person's station and stage of life rather than work freely chosen because it is pleasing. The sattvic person does not select their task by preference. They take up what is properly theirs to do.
The next marks are inward: acting without the conceit that says 'I am the doer,' and without being pulled by fondness or pushed by hostility.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhusūdana · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
The next marks are inward rather than outward. The action is free of clinging, read chiefly as freedom from the conceit of doership, the insistence that 'I am the one doing this,' and it is done without attraction or aversion, not from fondness such as love of fame, and not from hatred such as the wish to defeat a rival.
The deciding mark is craving nothing from the fruit; the identical duty becomes sattvic only when this craving falls away.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
The decisive mark is that the doer does not crave the fruit. The form of the deed never changes; what changes, and what earns the act its name, is whether the mind performing it still reaches for a particular outcome to come back to it. Remove that reaching, and the identical obligatory action becomes sattvic.
Where a source is silent or thin, as with Madhva and Abhinavagupta on this verse, the honest report is silence, not invention.
Across Dvaita, Kashmir ŚaivaMadhva · AbhinavaguptaIn Madhva and Abhinavagupta’s words
Two of the six named acaryas leave little or nothing on record here: Madhva's extant commentary is silent on this verse, and Abhinavagupta's surviving remark is a brief lexical gloss shared across the three verses on action rather than a developed reading of this one. Both silences are worth naming rather than papering over.
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 keeps the four marks plain and resists folding them into any further claim about the Self: enjoined duty, freedom from the doer's conceit, action without pretence toward fame or disrepute, and no aim fixed on the fruit, done with the simple thought that it is to be done. Read alongside his teaching elsewhere that such action is worship offered to the Lord, this verse can be taken as the practical shape that worship wears from the outside.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva's surviving commentary offers no comment on this verse at all, and that silence should be reported honestly rather than filled in with invented content. What can be said, clearly marked as extrapolation and not as his own words, is that his governing principle elsewhere, that every capacity to act is a dependent competence exercised only by the Lord's sanction, would plausibly frame fruit-free, prescribed duty as the fitting posture of a dependent being. This remains a conditional extension, not a paraphrase of anything he wrote.
Shaiva, in their fuller words
Abhinavagupta's extant remark on this verse is a brief lexical gloss spanning all three verses on the kinds of action: 'fixed' is glossed as what is to be done, and the other terms glossed belong properly to the two verses that follow. No developed Kashmir Shaiva reading of sattvic action survives at this verse. On a conditional, clearly-labeled extension of his treatment of entitlement elsewhere, fixed duty done without clinging might be read as action that no longer forgets its own source in the self's recognized freedom, but this is offered as extrapolation, not as his stated position here.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara walks the same four marks and adds his own small observation: the marks are doctrinal, almost a definition, but they ride entirely on the inward note of why the act is done. Two people can perform the identical duty, and only the quiet motive inside it separates the sattvic instance from the others. Read alongside his devotional cast elsewhere, this checklist becomes the practical shape an offering to the Supreme takes in ordinary duty.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Read together for a plain, checklist-facing gloss, Madhusudana's precision about which ego is removed (the pride of being 'the great sacrificer,' not the subtler sense of doership that survives until knowledge) and Sridhara's reminder that the marks ride on inward motive rather than outer form give a working test any reader can apply: is this duty mine to do, am I gripping it, am I leaning toward or away from it, and am I still owed something back 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
Take one task that is plainly yours today, something you did not invent for yourself but that simply falls to you. Do it once leaning toward it, once leaning away, and once simply because it is to be done, with no thought of what it will bring you. Notice which of the three leaves your attention most fully on the work itself.
Take up the work that is properly yours, hold it without leaning toward it or away, and let it be enough that it is done.
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 a short run of three that sort action by the three gunas, the strands that color everything in nature. What is named here is sattvic action, the pure and luminous kind, and the verse gives a working checklist for it rather than an abstract description: four marks, each one testable against an actual deed.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The first mark is that the action is niyata, enjoined and obligatory, the duty that belongs to a person's station and stage of life rather than work freely chosen because it is pleasing. The sattvic person does not select their task by preference. They take up what is properly theirs to do.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
The next marks are inward rather than outward. The action is free of clinging, read chiefly as freedom from the conceit of doership, the insistence that 'I am the one doing this,' and it is done without attraction or aversion, not from fondness such as love of fame, and not from hatred such as the wish to defeat a rival.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
The decisive mark is that the doer does not crave the fruit. The form of the deed never changes; what changes, and what earns the act its name, is whether the mind performing it still reaches for a particular outcome to come back to it. Remove that reaching, and the identical obligatory action becomes sattvic.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Two of the six named acaryas leave little or nothing on record here: Madhva's extant commentary is silent on this verse, and Abhinavagupta's surviving remark is a brief lexical gloss shared across the three verses on action rather than a developed reading of this one. Both silences are worth naming rather than papering over.
Madhvācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara's own extant word here stays with the compact fourfold definition and does not visibly extend it. Madhusudana, reading the same verse within his larger Advaita architecture, adds a distinctive caution: even the sattvic person, free of the rajasic pride of the great sacrificer, still carries the subtler ego that prompts a sense of doership and enjoyment, as long as ignorance lasts. Only the knower of reality, free of even that ego, stands beyond any further qualification for action. Sattvic action is thus the seeker's path, not yet the knower's condition.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja keeps the four marks plain and resists folding them into any further claim about the Self: enjoined duty, freedom from the doer's conceit, action without pretence toward fame or disrepute, and no aim fixed on the fruit, done with the simple thought that it is to be done. Read alongside his teaching elsewhere that such action is worship offered to the Lord, this verse can be taken as the practical shape that worship wears from the outside.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva's surviving commentary offers no comment on this verse at all, and that silence should be reported honestly rather than filled in with invented content. What can be said, clearly marked as extrapolation and not as his own words, is that his governing principle elsewhere, that every capacity to act is a dependent competence exercised only by the Lord's sanction, would plausibly frame fruit-free, prescribed duty as the fitting posture of a dependent being. This remains a conditional extension, not a paraphrase of anything he wrote.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta's extant remark on this verse is a brief lexical gloss spanning all three verses on the kinds of action: 'fixed' is glossed as what is to be done, and the other terms glossed belong properly to the two verses that follow. No developed Kashmir Shaiva reading of sattvic action survives at this verse. On a conditional, clearly-labeled extension of his treatment of entitlement elsewhere, fixed duty done without clinging might be read as action that no longer forgets its own source in the self's recognized freedom, but this is offered as extrapolation, not as his stated position here.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara walks the same four marks and adds his own small observation: the marks are doctrinal, almost a definition, but they ride entirely on the inward note of why the act is done. Two people can perform the identical duty, and only the quiet motive inside it separates the sattvic instance from the others. Read alongside his devotional cast elsewhere, this checklist becomes the practical shape an offering to the Supreme takes in ordinary duty.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Read together for a plain, checklist-facing gloss, Madhusudana's precision about which ego is removed (the pride of being 'the great sacrificer,' not the subtler sense of doership that survives until knowledge) and Sridhara's reminder that the marks ride on inward motive rather than outer form give a working test any reader can apply: is this duty mine to do, am I gripping it, am I leaning toward or away from it, and am I still owed something back from it.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrīdhara Svāmī
A Seeker Asks
If sattvic action means doing the duty assigned to my station, not chosen by me and with no feeling toward it, does that not make the good life passive and joyless, a matter of dull compliance?
Freedom from liking and aversion is not numbness. It is release from being pushed and pulled, from acting out of fondness for fame or hatred of a rival, from leaning toward a task because it flatters you or away from it because it galls you. What drops away is the agitation, not the engagement.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The form of the deed never becomes careless. What changes is only the motive riding inside it; the duty is carried out fully, since nothing here asks you to perform it half-heartedly. The energy that once went toward craving the result is simply redirected to the doing.
Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
It is not blind compliance, because the inner aim is not absent, only redirected: the act is done for its own sake as duty, and, on the fuller readings elsewhere in this chapter, offered up rather than gripped. Choosing on the basis of craving is what is set aside, not care for how the work is done.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Contemplation
Take one task that is plainly yours today, something you did not invent for yourself but that simply falls to you. Do it once leaning toward it, once leaning away, and once simply because it is to be done, with no thought of what it will bring you. Notice which of the three leaves your attention most fully on the work itself.
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.