Hear my own judgment now: giving up is not one thing, but three.
After a chorus of conflicting views on renunciation, Krishna finally speaks for himself. What he offers first is not the answer but the map: relinquishment comes in three kinds, and only one of them is worth having.
Hear my own settled judgment on this matter of giving up, Arjuna. Giving up is not one thing; it comes in three kinds.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Others have just been quoted disputing what it means to give up work, and none of them settled it. Now the argument stops, and you hear the decisive word from the one actually qualified to give it.
The teaching
You have heard a small chorus of views on relinquishment and renunciation, each partial, none conclusive. Krishna now closes that debate simply by refusing to continue it: hear my own judgment, he says, not one more voice among the others. The first thing this judgment tells you is that giving-up is not a single, uniform act. It comes in three kinds. Different readers sort these three kinds along different lines, some by the three qualities of nature, sattva, rajas, and tamas, others by what exactly gets surrendered: the fruit, the sense that the action is mine, or the sense that I am its doer. What holds across every reading is the deeper claim beneath the sorting: identical outward acts of letting go can spring from entirely different inner conditions, and only that inner condition decides whether the letting-go is worth anything at all. Do not assume this is obvious. Giving up your claims on work can feel like plain common sense, the kind of thing that needs no teacher. The commentators push back hard on that complacency: true relinquishment is genuinely hard to see clearly, which is exactly why the verse insists that only Krishna's authority, and not casual assumption, can settle it. And notice what this verse does not do. It does not tell you to stop acting. Whatever each school finally means by relinquishment, the deed itself continues; what changes is the spirit, the aim, or the sense of ownership carried into it.
The doubt that rises
If the very same outward act of giving something up can be genuine in one person and hollow in another, what exactly is doing the sorting? Is it the guna behind the mind's movement, or is it what specifically gets surrendered, the fruit, the deed, or the sense of being its doer? And does the answer change once the seeker in question already knows the Self?
Where the paths divide
For one still qualified for action and short of Self-knowledge.
Shankara treats tyaga and sannyasa as two names for one thing, not two separate disciplines. The threefold sorting by the gunas belongs only to the seeker who has not yet realized the Self; for the knower, relinquishment is not threefold at all, but stands beyond the gunas altogether. What makes this verse necessary, on his reading, is precisely that the matter is too subtle for anyone but Krishna to resolve with authority.
Sorted by fruit, action, and doership, not by the gunas.
Ramanuja reads an entirely different axis into the threefold division: relinquishing claim on the fruit, relinquishing the sense that the action itself is mine, and relinquishing the sense that I am its doer at all, with agency finally referred back to the Lord. This builds directly on Krishna's earlier instruction to lay every action on him, free of longing and of any sense of ownership.
Read as protecting scripture's rule on the orders of life.
Madhva reads the verse mainly as a safeguard: sacrifice, giving, and austerity remain obligatory for every person at every stage of life, even the highest renunciants, because remembered scripture directs anyone seeking release toward an order of life itself built from such acts. Any word that might seem to license abandoning them has to be read as conditional, never as a full exemption.
Announcing gravity, with the devotional depth to follow shortly.
Sridhara reads the address tiger among men as a quiet correction: do not assume giving up your works is common knowledge with nothing left to learn. His comment on this particular verse stays close to the text, mainly certifying that a settled, authoritative teaching is now beginning, and marking the line between renunciation and relinquishment that the coming verses will unfold in fuller, devotional detail.
True relinquishment as even-minded action, not guna-coloring.
Abhinavagupta first lays out the rival views Krishna is settling, the Sankhya thinkers who would abandon harmful action outright and the ritualists who hold that scripturally sanctioned harm is no harm at all. Against both, his own conviction is that relinquishment, whatever guna colors it, truly names only the carrying-through of action with an even mind, free of attachment, aversion, and longing for fruit, a state fully realized only in the sage beyond all three gunas.
A technically narrow claim, not the whole of renunciation.
Madhusudana treats this verse as answering exactly the question Arjuna asked, no more: relinquishment as the absence of fruit-desire, of action, or of both together, in three distinct combinations, available to one still qualified for ordinary action. He is careful to note that a further, higher renunciation belonging to one already beyond the gunas is not covered here at all, and waits for later verses to be properly addressed.
All six readings agree that the same outward act of giving-up can be hollow or genuine depending on something the eye cannot see directly. They part on what exactly that hidden thing is: the guna behind the mind, the object specifically surrendered, or the standing of the one who surrenders it. This page does not choose between them, and neither, in this verse, does Krishna yet.
A question to carry
The next time you decide to give something up, can you name, honestly, what is actually driving the letting go: clarity, weariness, or the wish simply to avoid?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
So hold the question a little longer before you act on it. Let the spirit behind your giving-up be as considered as the giving-up itself.
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.
Arjuna has just heard others debate what it means to renounce action; here Krishna sets that debate aside and announces that he alone will settle it, opening the chapter's central teaching on tyaga.
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.
Krishna stops quoting others and speaks his own settled judgment, marking this as the hinge of the chapter's argument.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Kashmir Śaiva, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Abhinavagupta · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
Krishna stops surveying other people's opinions on relinquishment and renunciation and speaks his own settled judgment. The verse marks a hinge: earlier speakers had voiced only partial or conflicting views, so none of them could resolve the question, and it falls to Krishna alone to state the decisive word.
Relinquishment is declared threefold, whatever axis sorts it: gunas for some, fruit-action-doership for others.
Across Advaita, Dvaita, Kashmir ŚaivaŚaṅkara · Madhva · Abhinavagupta · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Madhva, and 2 others’ words
Giving-up is declared to be of three kinds. Whatever axis a given commentator uses to sort them, sattva-rajas-tamas or fruit-action-agency, the shared claim is the same: relinquishment is not one simple thing done the same way by everyone. The identical outward act can be performed from three genuinely different inner conditions.
The subject only looks obvious; its real nature is subtle enough that no one but Krishna can be trusted to settle it.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara and Śrīdhara’s words
Several readings insist the subject is harder than it looks. Giving up one's works can seem like plain common sense, nothing new to learn, and the commentators forestall exactly that complacency: true relinquishment is subtle and not reached by casual assumption, which is why Krishna's own authority is invoked to settle it.
Naming the lesser kinds beside the true one is itself the teaching: their presence is what makes the genuine kind visible.
Across Advaita, Kashmir ŚaivaŚaṅkara · Abhinavagupta · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Abhinavagupta, and 1 others’ words
Only one of the three kinds is relinquishment in the fullest, most genuine sense; the other two are described so that the seeker can recognize and set them aside. Naming the lesser kinds beside the true one is itself the teaching method: the worth of genuine giving-up becomes visible only next to its counterfeits.
None of this is permission to stop acting; it is an instruction about the spirit in which action continues.
Across Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, Kashmir ŚaivaRāmānuja · Madhva · AbhinavaguptaIn Rāmānuja, Madhva, and 1 others’ words
None of the commentators reads this as license to abandon obligatory action altogether. Whatever relinquishment finally means for each school, it is not a permission to stop acting; it is an instruction about the spirit, the aim, or the sense of ownership that action is or is not performed with.
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 sorts relinquishment along an entirely different axis: giving up claim on the fruit, giving up the sense that the action is one's own, and giving up the sense of being the doer at all, with agency finally referred to the Lord. This is not a division by gunas but a threefold surrender built directly on Krishna's earlier instruction to cast every action on him and fight free of longing and ownership.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva reads the verse as protecting a non-negotiable rule of scripture: sacrifice, giving, and austerity remain obligatory for every person at every stage of life, including the highest renunciants, since remembered scripture directs anyone seeking release toward an order of life itself made of such acts. Any apparent license to abandon them must be read as conditional, never as a blanket exemption.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Madhusudana gives the verse a technically precise scope: it answers only the relinquishment asked about by one still qualified for action, defined as the absence of fruit-desire, action, or both, in three distinct combinations. A further, higher renunciation belonging to one beyond the gunas is explicitly set aside as outside this verse's actual claim, to be addressed only later.
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
Notice, the next time you set something down, whether it is a habit, a role, or a hoped-for outcome, what is actually driving the letting go. Is it clarity, or is it fatigue wearing the mask of wisdom, or plain avoidance dressed up as detachment? The verse does not ask you to stop giving things up. It asks you to look honestly at the spirit in which you do.
So wait, for a moment, before you decide what to give up, and ask instead what spirit you would be giving it up in.
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
rishna stops surveying other people's opinions on relinquishment and renunciation and speaks his own settled judgment. The verse marks a hinge: earlier speakers had voiced only partial or conflicting views, so none of them could resolve the question, and it falls to Krishna alone to state the decisive word.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Giving-up is declared to be of three kinds. Whatever axis a given commentator uses to sort them, sattva-rajas-tamas or fruit-action-agency, the shared claim is the same: relinquishment is not one simple thing done the same way by everyone. The identical outward act can be performed from three genuinely different inner conditions.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhvācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Several readings insist the subject is harder than it looks. Giving up one's works can seem like plain common sense, nothing new to learn, and the commentators forestall exactly that complacency: true relinquishment is subtle and not reached by casual assumption, which is why Krishna's own authority is invoked to settle it.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Only one of the three kinds is relinquishment in the fullest, most genuine sense; the other two are described so that the seeker can recognize and set them aside. Naming the lesser kinds beside the true one is itself the teaching method: the worth of genuine giving-up becomes visible only next to its counterfeits.
Śaṅkarācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
None of the commentators reads this as license to abandon obligatory action altogether. Whatever relinquishment finally means for each school, it is not a permission to stop acting; it is an instruction about the spirit, the aim, or the sense of ownership that action is or is not performed with.
Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara reads tyaga and sannyasa as strict synonyms, both naming a single act of letting go. The threefold sorting by the gunas applies only to the person still qualified for action and not yet established in knowledge of the Self; for the knower of the highest truth, relinquishment is not threefold at all, but stands beyond the gunas entirely. The verse's real weight, for him, is that only Krishna's authority can settle a question this subtle.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja sorts relinquishment along an entirely different axis: giving up claim on the fruit, giving up the sense that the action is one's own, and giving up the sense of being the doer at all, with agency finally referred to the Lord. This is not a division by gunas but a threefold surrender built directly on Krishna's earlier instruction to cast every action on him and fight free of longing and ownership.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva reads the verse as protecting a non-negotiable rule of scripture: sacrifice, giving, and austerity remain obligatory for every person at every stage of life, including the highest renunciants, since remembered scripture directs anyone seeking release toward an order of life itself made of such acts. Any apparent license to abandon them must be read as conditional, never as a blanket exemption.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta first lays out the rival Sankhya and Mimamsa positions Krishna is adjudicating, then states his own conviction: relinquishment takes on the color of whichever guna performs it, but in truth it names only the carrying-through of action with an even mind, free of attachment, aversion, and longing for fruit. Only the sage entirely free of the gunas grounds the word relinquishment in its fullest sense.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara reads the address tiger among men as forestalling complacency: giving up works only looks like common knowledge, and the seriousness of what follows should not be underestimated. His treatment here is comparatively brief, mainly certifying that a settled, authoritative teaching is now beginning and marking the line between renunciation and relinquishment that the coming verses will unpack.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Madhusudana gives the verse a technically precise scope: it answers only the relinquishment asked about by one still qualified for action, defined as the absence of fruit-desire, action, or both, in three distinct combinations. A further, higher renunciation belonging to one beyond the gunas is explicitly set aside as outside this verse's actual claim, to be addressed only later.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If Krishna is finally about to tell me what genuine renunciation is, why does he first insist that giving-up comes in three kinds, two of which are apparently not worth having?
Because naming the counterfeits is how the genuine article becomes visible. Krishna does not describe the rajasic and tamasic kinds so you might choose them; he describes them so you can recognize and set them aside once you see the real thing beside them.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The threefold sorting also answers a real, easy-to-miss danger: giving something up can look identical from the outside whether it comes from clarity, from restless frustration, or from simple avoidance. Only the inner spirit distinguishes them, and that is exactly what the verse asks you to examine.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara Svāmī
And the verse is careful about scope. It settles what Arjuna actually asked, the relinquishment available to someone still acting in the world; it explicitly leaves a further, higher renunciation for later, once the ground for it has been properly prepared.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Rāmānujācārya
Contemplation
Notice, the next time you set something down, whether it is a habit, a role, or a hoped-for outcome, what is actually driving the letting go. Is it clarity, or is it fatigue wearing the mask of wisdom, or plain avoidance dressed up as detachment? The verse does not ask you to stop giving things up. It asks you to look honestly at the spirit in which you do.
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.