Some thinkers, learned men who lean on the standpoint of the Sankhyas and the like, say that action is to be given up as something tainted, since all action, being a cause of bondage, carries the fault of binding; just as a fault such as attachment is given up, so action is to be given up, and this even by those qualified for action. Others say that the actions of sacrifice, giving, and austerity are not to be given up. These alternatives are weighed with reference to people who are qualified for action, not with reference to renouncers settled in knowledge who have risen above action. The standing of the Sankhyas, who follow the path of knowledge, was already declared by Me earlier; those who have been lifted out of the sphere of action by that teaching are not in question here. It may be objected that, since the qualified followers of the path of action, who hold a distinct standing, are examined here in this concluding section that sums up the whole meaning of scripture, the Sankhyas, who are settled in knowledge, should be examined too. The answer is no, for the relinquishment that is rooted in delusion or in pain cannot apply to them. The Sankhyas do not see in the self the pain that comes of bodily effort, for desire and the rest have been shown to belong to the field, not to the self; so they do not abandon action out of fear of the pain of bodily effort. Nor do they see actions as belonging to the self, such that they would abandon a prescribed action out of delusion. They renounce with the conviction 'I do nothing at all; it is the qualities that act.' For the knowers of truth the mode of renunciation has been stated in such words as 'renouncing all actions with the mind'. Therefore it is only those others, qualified for action and ignorant of the self, in whom relinquishment born of delusion or of fear of bodily pain is possible, who are censured here as the tamasic and rajasic relinquishers, and this censure serves to praise the relinquishment of the fruit of action by people who act without knowing the self. The renouncer in the highest sense has already been singled out, in the description of one who has gone beyond the qualities, by such marks as 'giving up every undertaking', 'silent', 'content with whatever comes', 'homeless and steady of mind'. And the Lord will say further on, 'the supreme consummation of knowledge'. So renouncers settled in knowledge are not what is meant here. What is here called 'renunciation', by reason of its sattvic quality as set against the tamasic and the rest, is only the relinquishment of the fruit of action; it is not renunciation in the primary sense, the giving up of all action. If it be argued that, since the complete giving up of action is impossible, the words 'no embodied being can' show that renunciation in the primary sense alone is meant, the answer is no, for that statement of a reason serves only to praise. Just as 'from relinquishment, peace at once follows' is only praise of the relinquishment of the fruit of action, addressed to Arjuna, who was unable to carry out the several courses already taught and was still without knowledge, so too 'no embodied being can' serves only to praise the relinquishment of the fruit of action. No one can show that this verse overturns the position 'renouncing all actions with the mind, he rests, neither acting nor causing to act'. Therefore this whole choice between renunciation and relinquishment concerns only those qualified for action. Those who see the highest truth, the Sankhyas, are qualified solely for the standing in knowledge that has the form of giving up all action, and for nothing else, so they are not subject to these alternatives. We have established this in commenting on 'know the indestructible' and in the third chapter and elsewhere. Now, among these various alternatives.

Some thinkers, the Kapilas and the Vedic followers of their view, say that, since all action of sacrifice and the rest binds, like the fault of passion and the rest, it is to be relinquished by the seeker of liberation. Others, the learned, say that action of sacrifice and the rest is not to be relinquished.

Since the verse says 'the wise', the first view too is to be accepted. What is meant is relinquishment by way of the giving up of fruit; in that view, sacrifice and the rest are kept. Krishna will also say, 'but he who is a relinquisher of the fruit of action' (18.11). Hence this is but a single view.