Before Krishna answers, he first shows you both sides of the argument.

For the seeker still qualified for action, not the knower already beyond it.

Shankara sets a firm border around this dispute: it belongs only to the person still acting and not yet settled in knowledge of the Self. The knower, who has already seen that the Self does no acting, that it is the qualities of nature which act, stands entirely outside this quarrel; his renunciation is already complete. So when a later verse seems to praise 'giving up,' that praise falls only on the ignorant seeker's giving up of the fruit, never on the primary, total renunciation that belongs to the knower alone.

The two camps stated plainly, their mediation held for later.

What survives of Ramanuja's word on this verse states the two camps and goes no further: the followers of Kapila hold that all action, sacrifice included, binds like passion itself and should be relinquished, while other teachers hold the reverse. His fuller case, that desireless action offered as worship is itself a direct means to freedom rather than a fault to be shed, belongs to the verses still ahead, not to this one.

Read through the honorific given to the first camp.

Madhva notices that the verse calls the first camp 'the wise,' and takes that word as forbidding an easy dismissal of their view. Read charitably, what they relinquish is only the fruit of sacrifice, never the rite itself, and Krishna's own later naming of the one who gives up the fruit of action confirms it. On this reading, the two camps were never truly at odds; the apparent quarrel is only the raw material for a doubt Krishna will go on to clear.

An honest gap, marked rather than filled.

No comment from Abhinavagupta survives for this particular verse, and none should be invented in his name. What can be offered, clearly labeled as a conditional extension rather than his own word, is this: on a Kashmir Shaiva reading elsewhere in the Gita, both camps here might be seen as arguing from within an already-contracted sense of a bound, calculating self. But that is this page's extrapolation, not a teaching he actually left behind on this verse.

Both sides argued in full, so the resolution will actually hold.

Sridhara stages the Samkhya case in careful technical detail: since any action using material things risks some harm, and the rule against harming a being seems to clash with the rite that calls for an offering, every action looks tainted. He sets beside it the Mimamsaka reply, that within the rite's own sphere the specific rule overrides the general one, so the standing rites carry no fault and need not be dropped. He is not undecided; he is building the strongest case for each side before showing how they resolve.

Read as the premise Krishna's coming answer depends on.

Madhusudana frames the whole verse as the ground Krishna needs before he can answer Arjuna's actual question, the difference between sannyasa and tyaga. He states each camp's reasoning in its own terms, the first aimed at those in whom the desire to know has not yet stirred, the second insisting that purifying rites are exactly what lets that desire arise, and holds his own resolution, that total renunciation belongs to the knower alone, for the verses immediately following.