नियतस्य तु सन्न्यासः कर्मणो नोपपद्यते । मोहात् तस्य परित्यागस् तामसः परिकीर्तितः ॥
niyatasya tu sannyāsaḥ karmaṇo nopapadyate | mohāt tasya parityāgas tāmasaḥ parikīrtitaḥ ||
Renouncing ordained/niyata karma is not appropriate; its abandonment through delusion is declared tāmasic.
Word by word (3)
- niyatasya tu sannyāsaḥ karmaṇo nopapadyate
- — but (tu) the sannyāsa/renunciation (sannyāsaḥ) of a prescribed/obligatory action (niyatasya karmaṇaḥ = of niyata/ordained karma) is not appropriate (nopapadyate = does not fit/is not proper) — niyata karma (like yajña-dāna-tapas from V5) simply cannot be renounced
- mohāt tasya parityāgas tāmasaḥ parikīrtitaḥ
- — its (tasya) abandonment (parityāgaḥ = complete giving up) from delusion (mohāt = from moha/delusion) — that is declared (parikīrtitaḥ = fully proclaimed) tāmasic (tāmasaḥ) — when prescribed acts are abandoned, it is always from delusion (moha = tamas-quality blindness)
- niyatasya karmaṇaḥ
- — of niyata karma — the ordained/prescribed action (niyata = fixed, appointed, ordained); in the Vedic system, niyata karma = nitya karma = the obligatory rites that must be performed regardless of desire or fruit-expectation; renouncing these is impossible without moha
But the renunciation of ordained duty is not fitting. Its abandonment through delusion is declared tāmasic.
A modern analogy
Tāmasic renunciation is like a doctor abandoning their patients because medicine is 'too painful to practice' — and calling it spiritual renunciation. The niyata karma (their duty to heal) is not optional; abandoning it is not liberation but delusion. V7 closes the debate from V3 by naming the first view (karma is doṣavat, abandon it) as tāmasic — it arises from moha, not wisdom.
V7 begins the three-fold tyāga classification. The tāmasic variety = abandoning niyata karma out of moha (delusion). This directly addresses and dismisses the first school from V3 (those who say 'all karma is doṣavat — abandon it'): their position is tāmasic, arising from delusion, not from wisdom. V7 establishes that proper tyāga is NOT the cessation of niyata karma but the release of attachment and fruit (as V6 specified). The rājasic variety follows in V8.
Nopapadyate (not appropriate/does not apply) is a strong logical term: it means the concept itself doesn't fit. Sannyāsa does not apply to niyata karma — the two are categorically incompatible. Shankaracharya comments that niyata karma is by definition non-negotiable; it has no fruit-attachment built in (it's obligatory regardless of desire) and therefore the only reason to abandon it is moha (confusion about what is obligatory and what is optional).
Public-domain translations (4) compare all →
MISSING from index. [1]
MISSING from index. Ganguli and Telang used. [4]
The renunciation of prescribed action is not proper. Its abandonment through delusion is described as of the quality of darkness. [9]
The renunciation of an act prescribed in the scriptures is not proper. Its abandonment from delusion is therefore declared to be of the quality of darkness. [13]
This verse speaks to
Where this thread continues
Sāttvic karma: prescribed, attachment-free, without rāga-dveṣa, by one not seeking fruit.
With mind attached, practising yoga, taking refuge in Me — hear how you shall know Me fully, without doubt.
Sannyāsa = abandoning desire-motivated action; tyāga = abandoning fruits of ALL action — say the learned.
Sāttvic tyāga: niyata karma done ONLY because 'this must be done,' having abandoned attachment and fruit.
Wise action without fruit-seeking breaks the birth-cycle and leads to the sorrowless state.
The tattva-vit sees gunas moving among gunas and does not become attached. Knowledge itself produces liberation.