Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 18, Verse 24: Krishna to Arjuna — Mokṣa-Sannyāsa-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Action performed by one who desires fruit (kama-epsuna) and acts with the sense of being the doer (sa-ahankara) is rajasic — but Shankara clarifies that 'ahankara' here is measured against worldly standards, not the absolute standard of the jnani. The truly self-knowing one (atma-vit) has no access to desire-driven doership; even a sattvic agent who lacks self-knowledge is, in this sense, tinged by ahankara. Bahulaayasa — great effortful striving — marks the action as rajasic because the knower of Brahman does not strive: striving itself signals identification with the body-instrument.

  divergence: Shankara: 'yo hi paramartha-nirahankara atma-vit na tasya kama-epsutva-bahulaayasa-kartrtva-prapti asti' — the truly egoless self-knower has no access to this triad of desire/effortful-doership.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Action performed by the fruit-desirer (phala-prepsuna) and by one armed with the pride of kartrtva — the conceit 'this great work is being done by me alone' — is declared rajasic. Ramanuja reads 'va' (or) as 'ca' (and), making both desire and egoistic authorship simultaneous marks of rajasa. For the Vaishishta-advaitin, true kainkarya (service) to Bhagavan is the opposite pole: self-offering with no claim on result or credit.

  divergence: Ramanuja: 'idam karma maya eva kriyate ity evam-rupa-abhimana-yuktena yat karma kriyate tad rajasam' — the self-congratulatory 'I alone do this' is the defining signature.

• Madhvadvaita

  *Rājasa* (passion-driven) action is named here by three marks: *kāmepsunā* (performed by one who craves desired results), *sāhaṅkāreṇa* (with *ahaṅkāra*, the false sense of independent authorship), and *bahulāyāsaṃ* (accompanied by abundant toil). In the dvaita *siddhānta*, *ahaṅkāra* is not merely a psychological fault but an ontological error — the *paratantra* (eternally dependent) *jīva* misattributes to itself the *svatantra* (self-sufficient, independent) agency that belongs solely to Hari. Desire for fruit (*kāma*) and pride of agency together constitute the rājasic knot: the *jīva* labors under the illusion that it is the ultimate source of its striving. *Bahulāyāsa* — the sheer excess of toil — is the natural consequence of this misdirection: effort cut loose from *hari-prīti* (delight in Hari) spirals into multiplied exertion without liberating fruit. The five-fold real distinction (*pañca-bheda*) stands behind this analysis: Lord and *jīva* remain ontologically distinct, so any action that collapses that *bheda* (real distinction) in the direction of self-sufficiency is rājasic at its root. Such action binds rather than liberates, since it reinforces the *jīva*'s false posture of independence rather than its proper subordination to Hari.

  divergence: Madhva and Jayatīrtha are silent on this verse. The dvaita reading is voiced directly from school *siddhānta* applied to the mūla: *kāmepsunā*, *sāhaṅkāreṇa*, and *bahulāyāsaṃ* are each mapped onto the *paratantra*-*jīva*'s structural tendency to usurp *svatantra* agency.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Vallabha identifies the rajasic action as that which (1) seeks the fruit (phala-epsuna), (2) arises from kartrtva-ahankara (the ego-claim of authorship), and (3) is accompanied by the assumption 'this action alone will produce that fruit' (idam phala-janakam karma iti). The triple knot — desire, doership-pride, and means-end calculation — is what makes bahulaayasa: abundant straining effort. In the Pushtimargiya lens, the antidote is not effort reduction but grace-surrender: when the soul offers even desire to Krishna as prasada, the straining dissolves.

  divergence: Vallabha: 'kartrtva-adi-ahankara-purvakena va idam phala-janakam karma iti bahula ayaso yatra tad rajasam' — desire plus authorship-ego plus means-end calculation is the complete rajasic signature.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Sridhara specifies two distinct sources of ahankara that make action rajasic: first, the fruit-desirer's ahankara (phalam praptum icchan); second, a more socially rooted pride — 'who among the learned equals me?' (mat-samah ko anyah shrotriyah asti iti evam nirudha-ahankara). This social-comparison vanity is a distinct and sharper form of egoism than mere desire. Together with bahulaayasa (excessive toil and strain), both forms of ego-driven action are declared rajasic.

  divergence: Sridhara: 'mat-samah ko anyah shrotriyah asti iti evam nirudha-ahankara-yuktena ca kriyate' — the pride of comparison ('none equals me') is explicitly named as a rajasic motivator.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusudana clarifies that 'puna' (again, repeatedly) signals not a one-time act but a recurring pattern: as long as desire persists, the agent returns again and again to desire-motivated action (yavat-kamanam kamya-avrtti). 'Va' is read as samuccaya (conjunction): both desire and the particular ahankara he defines as 'sanga-atmaka-garva' (pride rooted in attachment, described earlier in the context of sattvic action) combine. Bahulaayasa is 'sarvaanga-upasanharena klesha-avaha' — involving the contraction and toil of all limbs, oppressive in its straining. The verse thus completes the contrast with sattvic action by negating every sattvic qualifier point by point.

  divergence: Madhusudana: 'punar iti aniyatam yavat-kamanam kamya-avrtteh' — 'puna' signals indefinite recurrence as long as desire endures, not a single instance.