यत् तु कृत्स्नवद् एकस्मिन् कार्ये सक्तम् अहैतुकम् । अतत्त्वार्थवद् अल्पं च तत् तामसम् उदाहृतम् ॥
yat tu kṛtsnavad ekasmin kārye saktam ahaitukam | atattvārthavad alpaṃ ca tat tāmasam udāhṛtam ||
Tāmasic jñāna: irrationally attached to one thing as if it were all — without truth-object, trivial, declared tāmasic.
Word by word (3)
- yat tu kṛtsnavad ekasmin kārye saktam ahaitukam
- — but (tu) that which (yat) clings (saktam = attached) to one single thing (ekasmin kārye = in one particular matter/object) as if it were ALL (kṛtsnavat = as-if-whole/as-if-complete) — without reason/cause (ahaituka = causeless, groundless, irrational)
- atattvārthavad alpaṃ ca tat tāmasam udāhṛtam
- — not having the essence of reality as its object (atattvārthatvat = not-having-true-object; a + tattva + artha + vat), and trivial/limited (alpam), that (tat) is declared (udāhṛtam) tāmasic (tāmasam) — tāmasic knowledge: irrational, false in its object, trivially narrow
- kṛtsnavat ekasmin
- — as-if-whole in one particular thing — the tāmasic error of taking a fragment as the totality; mistaking a part for the whole; like the blind men describing the elephant each claiming their part IS the elephant
But that knowledge which clings irrationally to one particular thing as if it were everything — without real object, trivial — that is declared tāmasic.
A modern analogy
Tāmasic knowledge is like a fanatic who takes one tribal custom as the total of human culture, one book as the only truth, one person as the epitome of humanity — and clings irrationally to this narrow fragment while ignoring the vastness. No reason, no truth, trivially small scope. Compared to rājasic (which at least correctly sees many things, just not their unity), tāmasic jñāna is simply deluded in its object.
V22 closes the three-fold jñāna analysis (V20-22). The descent is clear: V20 = One in All (sāttvic); V21 = Many-as-separate (rājasic); V22 = One-fragment-as-All (tāmasic). The tāmasic error is the most extreme: not just missing the unity (V21's error) but actively mistaking a fragment for the whole while being irrational about it. Ahaituka (without reason) and atattvārthatvat (without real object) make V22's tāmasic jñāna not merely incomplete but positively false.
Kṛtsnavat ekasmin (as-if-whole in one) is the tāmasic epistemic fallacy. In logic this is the pars pro toto error — taking a part for the whole. In religious life it produces fundamentalism: my tradition/deity/text is the only one that matters; all others are false or irrelevant. In personal life it produces obsessive single-focus that crowds out other truth. The Gita places this squarely in tamas — the guṇa of obscuration and confusion.
Public-domain translations (4) compare all →
But that which clings to one single effect as if it were all, without reason, having no real object, and narrow, that is declared to be Tamasic. [1]
MISSING from index. [4]
But that which clings to one single effect as if it were all, without reason, unreal in its object, and trivial, is declared dark. [9]
But that which is attached to each single object as if it were the whole, which is without reason, without truth, and mean, that knowledge has been said to be of the quality of darkness. [13]
This verse speaks to
Where this thread continues
Satisfied by knowledge and realisation, senses mastered, gold and mud equally seen — this is the true steadfast yogi.
With mind attached, practising yoga, taking refuge in Me — hear how you shall know Me fully, without doubt.
The fruit of those of little understanding is finite — god-worshippers go to the gods; My devotees come to Me.
This most secret śāstra spoken — knowing it, one becomes truly wise and kṛta-kṛtya: all duties fulfilled.
Minds absorbed in pleasure and power cannot settle into the resolute intelligence — they are carried away.
Acting for reward is the lowest form of action. Seek the wisdom that transcends reward-seeking.