Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 3, Verse 24: Krishna to Arjuna — Karma-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Śaṅkara reads this verse as Kṛṣṇa speaking from the standpoint of the highest Self (Īśvara), not personal ego: if even I, who have nothing to gain, abandoned action, these worlds would collapse (utsīdeyuḥ) for want of karma as the very cause of world-stability (loka-sthiti-nimitta). The result would be varṇa-saṅkara, the disorder born of confusion of social function, and I would be the author of the ruin of these beings (upahanyām imāḥ prajāḥ). Śaṅkara's punchline is structural: even the jñānī whose own kartavya is dissolved retains the duty of loka-anugraha — guiding others — and that obligation alone sustains continued action.

  divergence: Śaṅkara: 'loka-sthiti-nimitta-sya karmaṇaḥ abhāvāt… mama Īśvarasya ananu-rūpam āpadyeta' — action is the causal substrate of world-order, and its abandonment ill-befits the Īśvara-nature.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Rāmānuja expands the verse socially: Kṛṣṇa speaks as the exemplar (kulochita-karma-kartā) upon whom śiṣṭa-janāḥ (the disciplined) model their conduct — their dharma-niścaya is āyatta (dependent) on his visible practice. If he ceased karma, they would perish not by cosmic collapse but by moral deracination: not knowing their own adhikāra (qualification), they would abandon karma-niṣṭhā and thus be destroyed. The verse therefore carries a social-epistemological warning: the wise must remain visible practitioners so the imperfectly knowing (akṛtsnavidaḥ) are not misled.

  divergence: Rāmānuja: 'mad-ācāra-āyatta-dharma-niścayāḥ śiṣṭāḥ akṛtsna-vidaḥ sva-adhikāram ajānantaḥ karma-niṣṭhāyām anadhikurvantaḥ vinaśyeyuḥ.'

• Madhvadvaita

  *Utsīdeyur ime lokā na kuryāṃ karma ced aham* — were Hari to withhold his sustaining *karma* (action), these worlds (*lokāḥ*) would sink (*utsīdeyuḥ*), for every *jīva* (individual self) is *paratantra* (eternally dependent), possessing no agency except what Hari's will upholds moment to moment. *Saṃkara* (the disorder of varṇa-intermixture) names not merely a social disruption but the cosmic unraveling that attends any rupture from Hari's ordaining power. Kṛṣṇa speaks here not as a teacher reasoning from social utility but as *svatantra* (the independently real, self-sufficient) Lord disclosing the *pañca-bheda* (the five-fold real distinction: Lord–jīva, Lord–matter, jīva–jīva, jīva–matter, matter–matter) in motion: the worlds are sustained precisely because their Lord acts; their dependence is ontological, not contingent. *Upahanyām imāḥ prajāḥ* — the destruction of these beings would follow, because *paratantra* jīvas cannot sustain themselves when severed from the Lord's *karma-sphūrti* (the impulsion of divine activity). The verse thus registers the *taratamya* (graded ontological hierarchy) at the cosmological scale: Hari's action is not analogous to a king's duty but is the causal ground without which *paratantra* existence itself dissolves.

  divergence: No Madhva or Jayatīrtha bhāṣya on BG 3.24 is extant; reading is voiced directly from Dvaita *siddhānta* primitives off the mūla.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Vallabha's bhāṣya for this verse is minimal — the manuscript records only 'utsīdeyur iti,' a bare citation of the opening words. In Puṣṭi-mārga terms, however, the verse enacts Kṛṣṇa's own self-disclosure as the one whose ceasing to perform līlā-karma would make the worlds collapse; his continuing to act is not duty but spontaneous grace (anugraha), and the devotee who participates in that karma receives prasāda. [Bhāṣya effectively absent; one-phrase citation only — flagged honestly.]

  divergence: Vallabha on 3.24 preserves only 'utsīdeyur iti' — no elaborating commentary available.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Śrīdhara Svāmī renders the verse with plain philological force: cessation of karma would cause these worlds to perish (karma-lopena naśyeyuḥ), then varṇa-saṅkara would arise — and Kṛṣṇa declares himself the very author (kartā) of that corruption. The word upahanyām receives the gloss malinī-kuryām — 'I would defile them' — a devotionally charged reading: Bhagavān, the refuge of all beings, would become their destroyer, an intolerable inversion that makes his continued karma an act of compassionate protection.

  divergence: Śrīdhara: 'karma-lopena naśyeyuḥ… tasya apy aham eva kartā syām… prajāḥ upahanyām malinī-kuryām.'

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusūdana synthesizes both streams: as Īśvara, Kṛṣṇa has no personal purpose in action, yet the very fact that Manu and other ṛṣis model their conduct on his (mad-anuvartinām) means his inaction would cascade — world-order (loka-sthiti-hetu) gone, saṅkara born, all prajāḥ destroyed by dharma-lopa. Madhusūdana then adds a rhetorical turn unique to his commentary: the verse also operates as an implicit instruction to Arjuna — 'as I act, so must you who follow me follow in kind (tādṛśa eva anustheyaḥ)' — binding the bhakta's conduct to the Īśvara's as an intimate mimetic bond, not mere rule-following.

  divergence: Madhusūdana: 'mama śreṣṭhasya yādṛśa ācāras tādṛśa eva mad-anuvartinā tvayā anuṣṭheyaḥ na svātantryeṇa anyaḥ.'