न हि देहभृता शक्यं त्यक्तुं कर्माण्य् अशेषतः । यस् तु कर्मफलत्यागी स त्यागीत्य् अभिधीयते ॥
na hi deha-bhṛtā śakyaṃ tyaktuṃ karmāṇy aśeṣataḥ | yas tu karma-phala-tyāgī sa tyāgīty abhidhīyate ||
No embodied being can abandon ALL action; the true tyāgī is the karma-phala-tyāgī — the fruit-abandoner.
Word by word (3)
- na hi deha-bhṛtā śakyaṃ tyaktuṃ karmāṇy aśeṣataḥ
- — for indeed (na hi) it is not possible (śakyam) for the body-bearer (deha-bhṛtā = one who bears/holds a body, i.e., an embodied being) to abandon (tyaktum) actions (karmāṇi) without exception/completely (aśeṣataḥ = without remainder, entirely) — the fundamental impossibility: embodied life = action
- yas tu karma-phala-tyāgī sa tyāgīty abhidhīyate
- — but (tu) the one (yaḥ) who is a karma-phala-tyāgī (one who abandons the fruits of actions) — that person (sa) is called (abhidhīyate = is spoken of as) the true tyāgī — the operational definition: tyāgī ≠ one who stops acting, but one who stops expecting fruit
- deha-bhṛtā
- — bearer of a body (deha = body, bhṛt = one who bears/supports; bhṛtā = by the body-bearer); while alive, actions cannot cease; prāṇa (life-force) IS action — breathing, digestion, circulation all continue; even sannyāsins perform the actions of speech, movement, taking food
For it is not possible for an embodied being to give up all actions entirely. But the one who abandons the fruits of action — that person is truly called a tyāgī.
A modern analogy
V11 settles the practical question: complete cessation of action is impossible while living (breathing is action; digesting is action; speaking 'I have renounced' is action). Therefore the meaningful spiritual distinction is not 'acting vs. not-acting' but 'acting with fruit-expectation vs. acting without fruit-expectation.' The true tyāgī is the one who releases the fruit, not one who somehow stops all activity.
V11 closes the tyāga analysis section (V2-11) with the definitive practical clarification: complete action-cessation is impossible for an embodied person; therefore tyāga necessarily means fruit-renunciation, not action-renunciation. This is the final logical nail in the coffin of the 'karma is doṣavat — abandon it' school from V3. Even sannyāsins cannot abandon ALL action — they still breathe, eat, speak. Therefore the genuine sannyāsī/tyāgī is the one who releases phala (fruit), not the one who pretends to have stopped acting entirely.
Deha-bhṛtā (body-bearer) is precise: as long as there is a body, prāṇa operates, and prāṇa = action (the five prāṇas: prāṇa/apāna/vyāna/udāna/samāna are all forms of action). Even in deep meditation, metabolic activity continues. The only genuine cessation of action is mokṣa itself — the release from the cycle of embodied existence. Within embodied life, the question is not whether to act but how: with or without fruit-attachment.
Public-domain translations (4) compare all →
MISSING from index. Ganguli and Telang used as primary. [1]
MISSING from index. [4]
Since no embodied being can abandon actions without exception, he is said to be possessed of abandonment, who abandons the fruit of action. [9]
Since no embodied person can abandon actions without exception, he who abandons the fruit of actions is truly said to be an abandoner. [13]
This verse speaks to
Where this thread continues
Unable even to act for My sake? Then take refuge in Me, abandon all fruits of action — with self-restraint.
One with no ego-doer-sense, whose buddhi is untainted — even while killing all these beings, kills not, is not bound.
Yajña, dāna, and tapas must NOT be abandoned — they must be performed; they are purifiers of the wise.
Even yajña-dāna-tapas must be performed having abandoned attachment and fruits — my settled, highest opinion.
One who — given the five causes — sees the self alone as doer due to unrefined intellect sees not; that is durmati.
Even doing all actions always, with refuge in Me — by My grace one attains the eternal imperishable abode.