दुःखमित्येव यत्कर्म कायक्लेशभयात्त्यजेत्।स कृत्वा राजसं त्यागं नैव त्यागफलं लभेत्।।18.8।।
duḥkham ity eva yat karma kāya kleśa bhayāt tyajet saḥ kṛtvā rājasam tyāgaṃ na eva tyāga‑phalaṃ labhet
Translation
To give up prescribed duties because they are troublesome or cause bodily discomfort is renunciation in the mode of passion. Such renunciation is never beneficial or elevating.
Word Meanings
duḥkham — unhappy; iti — thus; eva — certainly; yat — which; karma — work; kāya — for the body; kleśa — trouble; bhayāt — out of fear; tyajet — gives up; saḥ — he; kṛtvā — after doing; rājasam — in the mode of passion; tyāgaṃ — renunciation; na — not; eva — certainly; tyāga‑phalaṃ — the result of renunciation; labhet — gains.
Understanding the Verse
In this verse Krishna explains the nature of a superficial type of renunciation that is motivated by fear or aversion. When a person, bound by the body (kāya), perceives the performance of his prescribed duties as a source of suffering (duḥkha) and mental agitation (kleśa), he may decide to abandon those duties out of anxiety (bhayāt). This abandonment, however, is performed in the mode of passion (rājasam), where the mind is still driven by attachment to comfort and aversion to discomfort. Consequently, it is not a true act of self‑sacrifice but merely an escape from difficulty.
Krishna stresses that such renunciation, though it appears to be a lofty act, does not lead to the fruit (phala) of genuine renunciation (tyāga). The result is that the individual does not attain the spiritual elevation promised by authentic sannyāsa. The underlying motive remains self‑centered, seeking personal ease rather than the higher purpose of performing one’s dharma without expectation of reward.
The context of Chapter 18 is the final exposition on the three modes of material nature (guṇas) and the corresponding types of action, knowledge, and renunciation. Earlier verses have described renunciation performed in the mode of goodness (sattvic) as a self‑less offering of actions to the Divine, which yields liberation. By contrast, the rajasic renunciation described here is still entangled in the desire for personal comfort and is therefore incapable of producing the ultimate peace.
Krishna also connects this idea with the broader teaching that true freedom comes not from avoiding work but from performing one’s duty with equanimity. The irony is that by refusing to work, the rajasic renunciant may accumulate greater mental turbulence, as the unresolved duties create inner conflict and a sense of incompleteness. Hence, the verse warns seekers not to mistake avoidance for spiritual progress.
In practical terms, the message encourages individuals to examine their motivations. If the impulse to quit arises from fear of failure, pain, or inconvenience, it signals a rajasic tendency. Instead, one should cultivate a sattvic attitude—performing duties as an offering, detached from outcomes. Such an approach transforms ordinary work into a path of purification, leading to genuine renunciation and the attainment of the true result of spiritual practice.
