Renunciation and discernment

I want to understand the truth of sannyāsa, mighty-armed one, and also of tyāga, separately, Hṛṣīkeśa, slayer of Keśi.

The abandonment of actions done from desire—that the poets know as sannyāsa. The abandonment of the fruits of all actions—the discerning call that tyāga.

Some thinkers say all action should be given up as a fault, while others say that the work of yajña, giving, and austerity should not be given up.

Hear from me my settled view on this matter of tyāga, best of the Bhāratas. Tyāga has been proclaimed to be of three kinds, tiger among men.

The work of yajña, giving, and austerity should not be given up—it should indeed be done. Yajña, giving, and austerity purify those who understand.

But even these actions should be done, Pārtha, giving up attachment and their fruits—this is my definite and highest conviction.

But renouncing one's prescribed action is not fitting. Giving it up out of delusion is declared to be tāmasic.

Whoever gives up an action out of fear of bodily hardship, thinking it's painful, performs a rājasic abandonment and does not gain the fruit of that abandonment.

When a prescribed action is performed simply because it ought to be done, Arjuna, giving up attachment and the fruit as well—that abandonment is held to be sāttvic.

The one who abandons in this way, filled with sattva, of steady understanding, doubts cut away, hates no disagreeable action and clings to no agreeable one.

It's not possible for an embodied being to give up actions entirely, but whoever gives up the fruit of action is called one who has truly renounced.

The threefold fruit of action—unwanted, wanted, and mixed—comes after death to those who have not renounced, but never to those who have.

Learn from me, mighty-armed one, these five causes for the accomplishment of all actions, as taught in the sāṅkhya teaching that brings action to its end:

The physical basis, the agent, the instruments of various kinds, the many distinct efforts, and the presiding divine power as the fifth—

whatever action a person undertakes with body, speech, or mind, whether right or wrong, these five are its causes.

This being so, whoever sees the self alone as the agent, because his understanding is unrefined, does not see truly—he is of confused mind.

Whoever is free of the sense of "I am the doer," whose understanding is not stained, even killing these people, does not kill and is not bound.

Knowledge, the object of knowledge, and the knower form the threefold impulse to action. The instrument, the action, and the agent form the threefold basis of action.

Knowledge, action, and the agent are also declared to be of three kinds each, according to the distinction of the guṇas, in the reckoning of the guṇas. Hear these as well, properly.

That by which one sees a single undying reality in all beings, undivided within the divided—know that knowledge to be sāttvic.

But the knowledge that sees, in all beings, separate and distinct entities of many different kinds, each cut off from the rest—know that knowledge to be rājasic.

And the knowledge that clings to a single effect as though it were the whole, without reason, without grounding in truth, and trivial—that is declared tāmasic.

A prescribed action done without attraction or aversion, by one who does not seek its fruit and is free of attachment—that is declared sāttvic.

But an action performed by one seeking to satisfy desires, or out of self-importance, and involving great strain—that is declared rājasic.

An action undertaken out of delusion, with no regard for consequence, loss, harm to others, or one's own capacity—that is called tāmasic.

An agent who is free of attachment, does not speak of himself as "I," is endowed with resolve and energy, and is unmoved by success or failure, is called sāttvic.

An agent who is driven by passion, seeks the fruits of action, is greedy, harmful, impure, and swayed by elation and grief, is called rājasic.

An agent who is unsteady, coarse, obstinate, deceitful, malicious, lazy, prone to despair, and given to endless delay, is called tāmasic.

Now hear the threefold distinction of buddhi and dhṛti, according to the guṇas, as I explain them fully and separately, Dhanañjaya.

The buddhi that knows action and withdrawal from action, what should and should not be done, fear and fearlessness, bondage and liberation—that buddhi, Pārtha, is sāttvic.

The buddhi by which one grasps dharma and adharma, and what should and should not be done, incorrectly—that buddhi, Pārtha, is rājasic.

The buddhi that, wrapped in darkness, takes adharma to be dharma, and sees all things turned upside down—that buddhi, Pārtha, is tāmasic.

The dhṛti by which one holds steady the activities of mind, breath, and senses, through unwavering yoga—that dhṛti, Pārtha, is sāttvic.

But the dhṛti by which one holds fast, out of attachment, to dharma, desire, and wealth, seeking the fruit of each—that dhṛti, Pārtha, is rājasic.

The dhṛti by which a dull-witted person does not let go of sleep, fear, grief, despair, and self-conceit—that dhṛti, Pārtha, is tāmasic.

And now hear from me, bull among the Bhāratas, of the threefold happiness. The happiness in which one comes to delight through practice, and by which one reaches the end of suffering—

which is like poison at first but like nectar in the end—that happiness is declared sāttvic, born of the clarity of one's own buddhi in realizing the self.

The happiness that arises from the contact of the senses with their objects, like nectar at first but like poison in the end—that happiness is held to be rājasic.

The happiness that deludes the self both at the start and in its result, arising from sleep, laziness, and carelessness—that is declared tāmasic.