18.3 - Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18, Verse 3

Bhagavad Gita verse 18.3 addresses the concept of renunciation, presenting different philosophical perspectives on what actions should or should not be abandoned. In this verse, Lord Krishna explains that there are two prominent schools of thought among the learned sages regarding renunciation. This discussion comes as part of Krishna's response to Arjuna's question about the difference between sannyāsa (renunciation of activities) and tyāga (renunciation of results).

The first perspective, attributed to some learned scholars (likely referring to the Sankhya philosophers), holds that all fruitive activities should be abandoned as they are inherently flawed and lead to bondage. These thinkers argue that actions motivated by personal desires (kāmya karma) inevitably involve some form of violence or harm and perpetuate one's entanglement in the material world. They view such actions as "beset with evil" and recommend their complete abandonment.

The second viewpoint, held by other learned sages (possibly from the Mimamsa school), contends that specific sacred duties—particularly sacrifice (yajna), charity (dana), and austerity (tapas)—should never be given up. They maintain that these scriptural practices are purifying and beneficial, serving as essential components of spiritual life even for those who are advanced in spiritual realization. As Krishna states, "yajña-dāna-tapaḥ-karma na tyājyam" – these prescribed duties should not be abandoned.

What's notable about Krishna's presentation is that He refers to both groups as "manīṣiṇaḥ" (thoughtful or learned ones), showing respect for their sincere inquiry despite their differing conclusions. This demonstrates Krishna's teaching style of honoring various perspectives before offering His definitive view. It illustrates how spiritual maturity involves respecting others' sincere efforts toward understanding, even when their conclusions might be incomplete.

Following this presentation of opposing views, Krishna prepares to offer His own conclusive understanding. He indicates that renunciation (tyāga) must be properly understood according to the three modes of material nature—sattva (goodness), rajas (passion), and tamas (ignorance). This nuanced approach suggests that spiritual practice isn't simply about what actions to abandon, but rather about understanding the consciousness and intention behind such renunciation.

The verse essentially highlights that spiritual advancement involves more than simply following external rules about what to do or not do. Krishna emphasizes that the inner disposition and motivation behind our actions and renunciations are what truly determine their spiritual value. This teaching reflects the Gita's consistent emphasis on inner transformation rather than mere external observance.

In the broader context of the Bhagavad Gita, this verse serves as an important bridge in Chapter 18's discussion of liberation through renunciation. By acknowledging different perspectives before offering His definitive guidance, Krishna demonstrates the importance of respectful dialogue in spiritual discourse. He shows that one can value another's sincere spiritual inquiry while gently guiding them toward a more complete understanding—a lesson in both spiritual wisdom and interpersonal relations.