Near the start of chapter 18, Arjuna asks the Lord for two words to be explained "each separately" (Gita 18.1). The Lord defines both in one verse (Gita 18.2). A few verses later He no longer speaks of two. He speaks only of relinquishment, and He ends by calling the one who gives up the fruit of action the one who has given up (Gita 18.11). A careful reader may ask what became of the second word.
The answer is that the two words mark two sizes of letting go. Renunciation removes the actions done only to gain something. Relinquishment reaches every action, duty included, and removes the claim on its result. Because no embodied being can stop acting, the Lord's conclusion rests on the second: keep sacrifice, giving and self-discipline (Gita 18.5), do them without clinging (Gita 18.6), and give up the fruit.
Here we read the twelve verses (Gita 18.1–12) for the way the answer is built, the difficulties that arise on the way, and the places where the commentators part. The result agrees with the earlier teaching on Renunciation or Karma Yoga?: giving up is measured by the clinging that is left, and not by the actions that are dropped.
Where this question stands in the Gita
The question is old. In chapter 3 the Lord had said that no one reaches freedom from action by not beginning it, and that mere renunciation does not bring perfection (Gita 3.4). No one can stay without action even for a moment (Gita 3.5). That teaching is read in Can We Simply Stop Acting?.
In chapter 5 Arjuna asked which is better, giving up action or the yoga of action (Gita 5.1). The reply was that both lead to the highest good, and that karma yoga is the better way for the one still on the road (Gita 5.2). The true renunciate was the one who neither hates nor craves (Gita 5.3).
Now, in the last chapter, the same question returns in a sharper form. In chapters 5 and 6 the question was how renunciation and karma yoga compare. Arjuna no longer asks which road to take. The limits of two words have now to be fixed. He asks what the two names mean. This topic stands on The Path of Karma Yoga, just before Freedom Through Action, which carries the thought to its end. The three kinds of action and the doer, which come next in chapter 18, are read in Who Is the Doer?.
Arjuna asks for the two words apart (18.1)
संन्यासस्य महाबाहो तत्त्वमिच्छामि वेदितुम् ।
त्यागस्य च हृषीकेश पृथक्केशिनिषूदन ॥ १८.१ ॥
saṁnyāsasya mahābāho tattvam ichchhāmi veditum |
tyāgasya cha hṛṣhīkeśha pṛthak keśhiniṣhūdana || 18.1 ||
Arjuna said: O mighty-armed Krishna, O Hṛṣhīkeśha, slayer of the demon Keśhī, I wish to know the true nature of renunciation (saṁnyāsa) and of relinquishment (tyāga), each one separately.
Arjuna wants to know the true nature of renunciation and of relinquishment, "each one separately". His request shows that the two words had been used for almost the same thing. In ordinary speech both mean "to leave something", and in the tradition the two stand very close. A listener of the Gita had heard the Lord praise the one who gives up action, and the one who offers action without clinging. Arjuna asks for the line between the two to be drawn.
Why does he ask again? Because a tangle is left even at the end of the teaching. The Gita tells him to act, and the Gita also praises the renunciation of actions. How can both hold together? Until the range of each word is fixed, the tangle stays. He asks at the end of the whole teaching, as one who has heard every chapter and still finds the two words close. The Lord now has to show whether two different things stand behind the two names, or one. The question is therefore not a beginner's question. It is the question of a student who has understood enough to see where the difficulty lies.
The two definitions (18.2)
काम्यानां कर्मणां न्यासं संन्यासं कवयो विदुः ।
सर्वकर्मफलत्यागं प्राहुस्त्यागं विचक्षणाः ॥ १८.२ ॥
kāmyānāṁ karmaṇāṁ nyāsaṁ saṁnyāsaṁ kavayo viduḥ |
sarvakarmaphalatyāgaṁ prāhus tyāgaṁ vichakṣhaṇāḥ || 18.2 ||
The Blessed Lord said: The wise understand renunciation (saṁnyāsa) to be the giving up of actions motivated by desire. The discerning declare relinquishment (tyāga) to be the giving up of the fruits of all actions.
The wise understand renunciation to be the giving up of actions motivated by desire. The discerning declare relinquishment to be the giving up of the fruits of all actions. The two definitions are of different shape. The first removes a class of actions, those done only to gain something. The second removes a relation to every action, including the duty that must be done anyway.
A shopkeeper may stop an extra sale that he wanted only for profit, and that is the first. The same shopkeeper may go on with his daily shop but stop fighting over the result, and that is the second. Both are letting go, and the second is wider. The first takes some tasks out of the person's hands. The second leaves all the tasks and changes the person's relation to them.
The second definition has a close parallel in the teaching that the right is to the work and never to its fruit (Gita 2.47). It also echoes the description of the one who has given up attachment to the fruit of action, is ever content and depends on nothing, and so does nothing though engaged in action (Gita 4.20). Later the Lord says that giving up the fruit of action is better than meditation, because peace follows at once (Gita 12.12).
The commentators go two ways on how the two words relate. The first stream takes them as one inner act under two names, with the giving up of the fruit as the heart of both. The second keeps them as two levels: the dropping of wish-driven acts as a step, and the giving up of the fruit as the full practice. Both streams agree that duty is not dropped, and the verses that follow bear this out.
Two views before the Lord (18.3–4)
यज्ञदानतपःकर्म न त्याज्यमिति चापरे ॥ १८.३ ॥
yajñadānatapaḥkarma na tyājyam iti chāpare || 18.3 ||
Some thinkers declare that action should be abandoned as an evil, while others say that acts of sacrifice, charity, and austerity should not be abandoned.
त्यागो हि पुरुषव्याघ्र त्रिविधः संप्रकीर्तितः ॥ १८.४ ॥
tyāgo hi puruṣhavyāghra trividhaḥ samprakīrtitaḥ || 18.4 ||
Hear from Me the conclusion on the matter of relinquishment (tyāga), O best of the Bharatas. Relinquishment, O tiger among men, has indeed been declared to be of three kinds.
Some thinkers say that action should be given up as an evil. Others say that acts of sacrifice, giving and austerity should not be given up (Gita 18.3). The first view belongs to the one who withdraws, and the second to the one who keeps the order of rites. Arjuna had both views in front of him.
The Lord does not choose one of them. He says, "Hear My conclusion", and tells Arjuna that relinquishment is of three kinds (Gita 18.4). He sorts the question and does not take a side. There is a share of truth in both views: in the first, that action can bind; in the second, that some actions do not bind but purify. The Lord puts both to a single test, which is not the nature of the act but the state of mind of the one who does it. The sorting is done by the motive behind the act, as the next verses show.
This is the same way He answered in chapter 3, where neither inaction nor mere renunciation was enough (Gita 3.4). In both places the Lord refuses the choice between "do everything" and "do nothing" and asks what is held inside.
What must not be given up (18.5–6)
यज्ञो दानं तपश्चैव पावनानि मनीषिणाम् ॥ १८.५ ॥
yajño dānaṁ tapaśh chaiva pāvanāni manīṣhiṇām || 18.5 ||
Acts of sacrifice, charity, and austerity should not be abandoned; they must certainly be performed. Sacrifice, charity, and austerity are indeed purifiers of the wise.
कर्तव्यानीति मे पार्थ निश्चितं मतमुत्तमम् ॥ १८.६ ॥
kartavyānīti me pārtha niśhchitaṁ matam uttamam || 18.6 ||
But even these actions should be performed, giving up attachment and the fruits. This, O Arjuna, is My definite and supreme opinion.
Acts of sacrifice, giving and austerity are not to be given up. They must certainly be done, because they purify the wise (Gita 18.5). In life terms they are shared work for the good of all, helping others, and the training of body and mind. The topic of sacrifice is read in Work as Sacrifice, and it rests on the teaching that work done as sacrifice does not bind (Gita 3.8–9).
Then the verse turns: even these are to be done with attachment and the fruit given up. The Lord calls this His definite and supreme opinion (Gita 18.6). The point is that the Lord treats these three exactly as He treats every other action. They are done, and they are let go of. Note the word "wise" in the first verse. Even one who thinks himself risen above the need must keep these three. No one's need of purification is ever complete.
This ties to the teaching that karma yogis act with body, mind, intellect and senses, giving up attachment, for the cleansing of the mind alone (Gita 5.11). The cleansing is the purpose, and the clinging would undo it. A person who gives to be thanked, or prays to bargain, has done the act and kept the stain. One may count merit after a sacrifice, want a name after giving, or feel above others after austerity. In all three the clinging comes back.
Two wrong ways of letting go (18.7–8)
मोहात्तस्य परित्यागस्तामसः परिकीर्तितः ॥ १८.७ ॥
mohāt tasya parityāgas tāmasaḥ parikīrtitaḥ || 18.7 ||
But renunciation of prescribed duty is not proper. Its abandonment out of delusion is declared to be tāmasic (of the nature of ignorance).
स कृत्वा राजसं त्यागं नैव त्यागफलं लभेत् ॥ १८.८ ॥
sa kṛtvā rājasaṁ tyāgaṁ naiva tyāgaphalaṁ labhet || 18.8 ||
One who gives up an action thinking, 'It is painful,' out of fear of bodily discomfort, performs a rājasic (passion-driven) relinquishment and does not obtain the fruit of relinquishment.
Giving up a prescribed duty is not right. If it is given up out of confusion, the Lord calls it dark (Gita 18.7). If a person gives up an action thinking "it is painful", out of fear of bodily discomfort, the Lord calls it restless and says he does not obtain the fruit of relinquishment (Gita 18.8).
The outer act is the same in both: a duty is dropped. The inner reason is different, and the verses let the reason decide what the act is called. The first person drops the duty because he has lost sight of why it matters. The second drops it because it tires him. Neither has let go of anything inside. The first has only fogged his mind, and the second has only run from a feeling.
| Reason for stopping | How the verses see it | What follows |
|---|---|---|
| Confusion about the duty | Wrong; dark (18.7) | The duty is lost and the confusion stays |
| Fear of discomfort | Restless; no fruit of relinquishment (18.8) | The tiredness and the burden are still there |
| Seeing that it ought to be done | Clear (18.9) | Lightness; no clinging |
The three modes of nature that give these their names are read in the other topics of chapter 18. Here it is enough to see that the Lord names three motives and that only the third gives a real release.
The clear way of giving up (18.9–10)
सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा फलं चैव स त्यागः सात्त्विको मतः ॥ १८.९ ॥
saṅgaṁ tyaktvā phalaṁ chaiva sa tyāgaḥ sāttviko mataḥ || 18.9 ||
When a prescribed action is performed simply because it ought to be done, giving up attachment and the fruit as well, O Arjuna, that relinquishment is considered sāttvic (pure).
त्यागी सत्त्वसमाविष्टो मेधावी छिन्नसंशयः ॥ १८.१० ॥
tyāgī sattvasamāviṣhṭo medhāvī chhinnasaṁśhayaḥ || 18.10 ||
The relinquisher, pervaded by sattva (purity), wise, and free from doubts, neither hates disagreeable action nor is attached to agreeable action.
When a prescribed action is done simply because it ought to be done, giving up attachment and the fruit as well, the Lord calls that relinquishment clear (Gita 18.9). The motive is the duty itself. There is no bargain in it, and no fear. Note that the work is done in full. It is not half done or done loosely, because "it ought to be done" includes full effort. What leaves is only the thing that sat hidden inside the work: "what will I get?"
The next verse describes the person. He is clear in mind, wise and free from doubt. He neither hates an unpleasant action nor clings to a pleasant one (Gita 18.10). These are the marks already given to the true renunciate in chapter 5, who neither hates nor craves (Gita 5.3). The same person is named the renunciate and the yogi in chapter 6, as the one who does what is to be done without leaning on the fruit (Gita 6.1).
| Verse | What it asks | Same idea elsewhere |
|---|---|---|
| 18.9 | Do the duty because it ought to be done | 6.1: work without leaning on the fruit |
| 18.10 | No hate for the unpleasant, no clinging to the pleasant | 5.3: no hate, no craving |
| 18.6 | Do even the sacred acts without clinging | 5.11: act for the cleansing of the mind |
You cannot drop action, but you can drop the fruit (18.11–12)
यस्तु कर्मफलत्यागी स त्यागीत्यभिधीयते ॥ १८.११ ॥
yas tu karmaphalatyāgī sa tyāgīty abhidhīyate || 18.11 ||
It is indeed not possible for an embodied being to abandon actions entirely; but one who relinquishes the fruits of action is called a relinquisher (tyāgī).
भवत्यत्यागिनां प्रेत्य न तु संन्यासिनां क्वचित् ॥ १८.१२ ॥
bhavaty atyāgināṁ pretya na tu saṁnyāsināṁ kvachit || 18.12 ||
The threefold fruit of action — disagreeable, agreeable, and mixed — accrues after death to those who have not relinquished, but never to renouncers.
It is not possible for an embodied being to give up actions entirely. The one who gives up the fruit of action is therefore called the one who has given up (Gita 18.11). This repeats what was said in chapter 3: no one is without action even for a moment (Gita 3.5). When action itself cannot be dropped, giving up can only mean giving up the fruit. The only thing that can be given up in full is the claim on the result.
So in the end the pair of words comes back to one thing. In the sense in which a man is a renouncer, he is a relinquisher. One who lets go of the grip is entitled to both names, and one who holds on is entitled to neither, whatever else he drops.
The twelfth verse closes the argument. The threefold fruit of action, unwanted, wanted and mixed, comes after death to those who have not given up, and never to renouncers (Gita 18.12). The Lord now sets the one who has not given up against the renouncer. The two words, which Arjuna asked to have apart, are used here for one person who has let go.
In the tradition, the "fruit after death" is the result of deeds that goes with the doer. It is the tradition's account, and the verse states only that the fruit follows those who cling and never those who have let go. The result is a description of what happens, and it is not a reward to be sought.
The argument in one view
| Verse | Step in the argument | What it excludes |
|---|---|---|
| 18.1 | Arjuna asks for the two words apart | Treating them as the same without thought |
| 18.2 | Renunciation: wish-driven acts; relinquishment: the fruit | Confusing a dropped act with a dropped claim |
| 18.3-4 | Two views set aside; three kinds of relinquishment | Choosing "all action" or "no action" |
| 18.5-6 | Sacrifice, giving, discipline stay, done without clinging | Dropping the practices that purify |
| 18.7-8 | Confusion and fear are wrong reasons to stop | Calling any stopping a giving up |
| 18.9-10 | A duty done because it ought to be done | Doing it for a bargain or out of fear |
| 18.11-12 | Action cannot be dropped; the fruit can | Hoping to escape by stopping |
How this meets the rest of the Gita
Nothing in this section stands alone in chapter 18. Each part of it was said somewhere earlier in the Gita, and that is what makes it trustworthy. Several verses outside these twelve carry the same thought, and each adds something.
- The right is to the work and not to its fruit (Gita 2.47). This gives the plainest statement of what relinquishment keeps and what it gives up. It is the ground of both the definition of relinquishment (Gita 18.2) and the clear way (Gita 18.9).
- No freedom comes from not beginning action, and mere renunciation does not bring perfection (Gita 3.4). It shows why the definition of renunciation cannot mean stopping.
- Action is better than inaction, and work done as sacrifice does not bind (Gita 3.8–9). It supports the call not to give up sacrifice, giving and discipline (Gita 18.5).
- The one who gives up attachment to the fruit is content and depends on nothing (Gita 4.20). It shows the inner state behind the clear way and its marks (Gita 18.9, Gita 18.10).
- The renunciate and the yogi is the one who does what is to be done without leaning on the fruit (Gita 6.1). It joins the two words into one person, as the earlier hub shows.
- Giving up the fruit brings peace at once (Gita 12.12). It names the gain that the eleventh verse only implies (Gita 18.11).
- The same teaching reaches its end in the freedom that is beyond action (Gita 18.49), read in Freedom Through Action.
Four objections and their replies
If duty stays, has leaving the world no place?
It has. The Lord said that both paths lead to the highest good (Gita 5.2). The tradition honours the order of renunciation as the last of the four stages of life. What the verses judge is the clinging. A monk who has given up hate and craving is a renunciate in the full sense (Gita 5.3), and a householder who has given up the claim on the fruit is one as well. The verse corrects the idea that the outer form is enough, and it leaves the outer form its place. A monk may still be bound by clinging, and a householder may be free of it.
Does giving up the fruit make a person careless about results?
No. The duty is done fully, "because it ought to be done" (Gita 18.9). The Lord does not say that the result has no value. He says that the result is not to be made the reason for acting (Gita 2.47). Watching how things turn out and taking care of it is part of duty. What is dropped is the grip on the result as a motive: the mind breaking when the result does not come, or the ego swelling when it does. The marks of the one who has done this are steadiness, no hate for the unpleasant and no clinging to the pleasant (Gita 18.10). Carelessness is a lack of care. This is care without the grip.
Are sacrifice, giving and discipline Vedic rites with no use today?
The Lord gives His own reason for keeping them: they purify the wise (Gita 18.5). The tradition reads the three widely, as shared work for the good of all, helping others, and the training of body and mind. Read so, none of them is out of date. The verse also asks that they be done without clinging (Gita 18.6).
Does the twelfth verse promise reward and punishment after death?
The verse describes a result and does not set a goal. It says that the fruit, whether unwanted, wanted or mixed, follows those who cling, and never those who have let go (Gita 18.12). A person is not asked to avoid bad fruit by this means. The person is asked to give up the claim on every fruit, good ones too, and the freedom comes as a consequence. The verse is a warning and also an assurance. The greed for fruit is not being stirred up. A picture is shown of the bondage of clinging, so that the weight of the call to let go can be understood.
Questions the verses raise, answered from the Gita and the tradition
How do the renouncer and the relinquisher differ?
The difference is in the first step. Renunciation removes the actions done only to gain something, which the Lord names as the wish-driven ones. Relinquishment goes further and reaches the duty that stays. The two streams of commentators read the difference as two levels or as one act in two names. In the last verse the Lord sets the one who has not given up against the renouncer (Gita 18.12), which supports the first reading.
Why does the Lord speak only of relinquishment after the fourth verse?
The question was about two words, and the answer was that the word relinquishment carries the whole practice. In the verses' own way of speaking, the essence of renunciation has already come into the answer. Renunciation, as the dropping of wish-driven acts, is already contained in a life where the fruit is let go. A person who has no claim on the fruit has no wish-driven act left to drop.
Is a person who stops all action because it hurts a relinquisher?
No. The verse says that such a person does not obtain the fruit of relinquishment (Gita 18.8). The burden is still there, and the fear has only been served. Running from pain is another form of attachment, attachment to comfort. The grip on the fruit is still there, and only its colour has turned over. The Lord's own advice is to do the duty and let go of the grip (Gita 18.9), and to count the pain as part of the duty. Running does not bring freedom (Gita 3.4).
What does it mean that the fruit follows after death?
In the tradition, the fruit of deeds goes with the doer and shapes what is met later. The verse says that for the one who has let go, this does not happen. The traditional account is the one given here, and the verse itself states only the sequence.
What becomes of the stage of renunciation in life?
The tradition keeps it as an honoured order, the last of the four stages of life, and the Gita says that it leads to the highest good (Gita 5.2). What the Gita adds is a test that does not depend on the stage: the person who neither hates nor craves (Gita 5.3), and who does what is to be done without leaning on its fruit (Gita 6.1).
What the twelve verses settle
The two words that Arjuna asked to have apart are two sizes of one letting go. Someone who feels that giving up means running away from work is speaking of confusion or fear of discomfort, and not of relinquishment. Renunciation gives up the acts done only for gain. Relinquishment gives up the claim on the fruit of every act, and it is the practice the Lord asks for. Sacrifice, giving and discipline stay, and even they are done without clinging. A duty is not given up out of confusion or out of fear of discomfort. It is done because it ought to be done, and the fruit is left.
For the first reading of this teaching see the simple reading, and for the verse-by-verse walk see the detailed reading. The road continues in Freedom Through Action.