त्याज्यं दोषवद् इत्य् एके कर्म प्राहुर् मनीषिणः । यज्ञदानतपःकर्म न त्याज्यम् इति चापरे ॥
tyājyaṃ doṣavad ity eke karma prāhur manīṣiṇaḥ | yajña-dāna-tapaḥ-karma na tyājyam iti cāpare ||
Some say all karma is faulty and should be abandoned; others say yajña-dāna-tapas must not be abandoned.
Word by word (3)
- tyājyaṃ doṣavad ity eke karma prāhur manīṣiṇaḥ
- — some (eke) wise thinkers/men of understanding (manīṣiṇaḥ) declare (prāhuḥ) that action (karma) should be abandoned (tyājyam) as being faulty/evil (doṣavat = having defects/flaws) — the extreme renunciation view: all karma is tainted
- yajña-dāna-tapaḥ-karma na tyājyam iti cāpare
- — and others (cāpare = ca + apare = and still others) hold (iti) that yajña-dāna-tapas actions (yajña-dāna-tapaḥ-karma) should NOT be abandoned (na tyājyam = not-abandonment-worthy) — the counter-view: sacred acts are not subject to renunciation
- doṣavat
- — having-defects (doṣa = fault, defect, impurity; vat = having); the argument that all karma creates doṣa (impurity, bondage) and should therefore be renounced; this is the extreme Sāṃkhya-Jain view that all action binds
Some thinkers say that action, being full of faults, should be abandoned. Others say that the actions of sacrifice, gift, and austerity should not be abandoned.
A modern analogy
V3 presents two philosophical positions: one camp says 'all action is messy — quit everything' (like extreme renouncement); the other says 'no, sacred practices must continue — they purify us' (like maintaining spiritual practice even while renouncing worldly attachment). Krishna will give his own verdict in V4-6.
V3 presents the philosophical debate that Krishna will resolve in V4-11. The first view (karma is doṣavat = faulty) is the Sāṃkhya-leaning position: all karma creates impressions and bondage; complete cessation of action is liberation. The second view (yajña-dāna-tapas must continue) reflects the Mīmāṃsā position: prescribed Vedic rites are obligatory and their abandonment violates dharma. Krishna's synthesis (V4-11) will transcend both: neither abandon all action nor perform action with fruit-attachment; perform niyata karma while releasing fruit.
Doṣavat (having-faults) is a precise Sāṃkhya term: all action creates doṣa (impurity, karma-impression). The Jain and extreme Sāṃkhya position holds that karma = bondage, therefore all karma must eventually cease. The Gita rejects this: action's doṣa comes from desire and fruit-attachment, not from action itself. Remove the attachment (tyāga) and the action no longer creates binding karma — this is the Gita's key philosophical contribution over against both the action-renouncing and action-for-fruit camps.
Public-domain translations (4) compare all →
MISSING from index. Ganguli and Telang used as primary. [1]
MISSING from index. Ganguli and Telang used as primary. [4]
Some wise men say, that action should be abandoned as being full of evil; and others, that the actions of sacrifice, gift, and penance should not be abandoned. [9]
Some wise men say that work (itself) should be abandoned as evil; others (say) that the works of sacrifice, gifts, and penance should not be abandoned. [13]
This verse speaks to
Where this thread continues
Sāttvic tyāga: niyata karma done ONLY because 'this must be done,' having abandoned attachment and fruit.
Sannyāsa = abandoning desire-motivated action; tyāga = abandoning fruits of ALL action — say the learned.
Even yajña-dāna-tapas must be performed having abandoned attachment and fruits — my settled, highest opinion.
Therefore: do your required action without attachment — this is the path that leads to the Supreme.
Who acts in duty without depending on fruit — that one is the true sannyāsī and yogī, not the fireless or the inactive.
Sāttvic yajña: performed as ordained, without fruit-desire, with the conviction 'this must be done.'