नियतस्य तु संन्यासः कर्मणो नोपपद्यते |
मोहात्तस्य परित्यागस्तामसः परिकीर्तितः ||१८-७||


niyatasya tu saṃnyāsaḥ karmaṇo nopapadyate .
mohāttasya parityāgastāmasaḥ parikīrtitaḥ ||18-7||



18.7. The renunciation of the enjoined action does not stand to reason; and completely relinishing it, out of ignorance is proclaimed, on all sides, as an act of the Tamas (Strand).

Shri Purohit Swami

18.7 It is not right to give up actions which are obligatory; and if they are misunderstood, it is the result of sheer ignorance.

Sri Abhinav Gupta

18.7 See Comment under 18.11

Sri Ramanuja

18.7 Obligatory acts consist of daily, and occasional ceremonies like the five great sacrifices; their abandonment is not proper, for without actions even the sustenance of the body would be impossible, as already stated: ‘From no-work, not even the body can be sustained’ (3.8). The sustenance of the body by eating the sacrificial remnants produces perfect knowledge. Otherwise, as declared in the statement, ‘But the sinful ones eat sin’ (3.13). The satisfaction that comes by eating food which is not the remnant of sacrifice and which is therefore of the form of sin, is productive of erroneous knowledge in the mind. For, as declared in the Sruti, ‘The mind consists of food’ (Cha. U., 6.5.4), the mind is sustained by food. Also, there is the Sruti text, ‘When the food is pure, the mind becomes pure; when the mind is pure, remembrance becomes firmly fixed; and when remembrance is acired, there is release from all knots of the heart’ (Ibid., 7.26.2). It is therefore proved by the Sruti that knowledge of the form of direct perception of Brahman, is dependent on the purity of food. Hence the great sacrifices and such other obligatory and occasional rites are worthy of adoption till one’s death, as they help in the knowledge of the Brahman. The renunciation of these is therefore not proper. Thus, the relinishment of these acts which produce knowledge through the delusion that they bind the self, is rooted in Tamas.

Tamasika renunciation has its roots in Tamas. Since such renunciation has its roots in ignorance which is the effect of Tamas, such renunciation is said to have its roots in Tamas. For Tamas is the root of ignorance as has been stated: ‘From Tamas arise negligence and delusion, and also, ignorance’ (14.17). Ignorance is erroneous knowledge which is antagonistic to right knowledge. So, it will be taught, ‘That reason which, enveloped in Tamas, regards wrong as right, and which reverses every value, O Arjuna, is Tamasika’ (18.32). It is for this reason that the renunciation of obligatory and occasional actions are said to have their roots in erroneous knowledge.

Sri Shankaracharya

18.7 Therefore, sannyasah, the abandoning; niyatasya tu karmanah, of the daily obligatory acts, by the seeker of Liberation who is as yet unenlightened and is fit for rites and duites; na apapadyate, is not justifiable, because what is desired is the purification of unenlightened persons. Parityagah, giving up; tasya, of that, of the daily obligatory duty; mohat, through delusion, through ignorance; parikirtitah, is declared; to be tamasah, based on tamas. Niyata is that duty which must be performed. That an act is niyata (obligatory) and it is relinished is contradictory. Therefore the giving up of that through delusion is declared to be based on tamas, for delusion is tamas. Besides,

Swami Adidevananda

18.7 But the renunciation of obligatory acts is not proper. Abandonment of these through delusion is declared to be Tamasika.

Swami Gambirananda

18.7 The abandoning of daily obligatory acts (nityakamas) is not justifiable. Giving up that through delusion is declared to be based on tamas.

Swami Sivananda

18.7 Verily the renunciation of obligatory action is not proper; the abandonment of the same from delusion is declared to be Tamasic.


Swami Sivananda

18.7 नियतस्य obligatory? तु verily? संन्यासः renunciation? कर्मणः of action? न not? उपपद्यते is proper? मोहात् from delusion? तस्य of the same? परित्यागः abandonment? तामसः Tamasic? परिकीर्तितः is declared.Commentary Renunciation of obligatory action is not proper because it is purifying in the case of an ignorant man. Should a man renounce actions that he should perform as a duty? such renunciation can only be of the ality of darkness. Prescribed duties must not be abandoned and if anyone does so? he is certainly deluded by ignorance. Tamas is ignorance.Niyata Prescribed according to ones religion. To hold that a duty is obligatory and then to relinish it is indeed selfcontradictory.