HomeBhagavad GitaCh. 18Shloka 31
Previous Verse
Next Verse

Bhagavad Gita — Moksha Sannyasa Yoga, Shloka 31

Moksha Sannyasa Yoga

Bhagavad Gita 31 illustration

यया धर्ममधर्मं च कार्यं चाकार्यमेव च । अयथावत्प्रजानाति बुद्धिः सा पार्थ राजसी ॥ १८.३१ ॥

yayā dharmam adharmaṃ ca kāryaṃ cākāryam eva ca | ayathāvat prajānāti buddhiḥ sā pārtha rājasī || 18.31 ||

হে পার্থ, যে বুদ্ধি ধর্ম-অধর্ম এবং কার্য-অকার্যকে অযথার্থভাবে বোঝে—সেই বুদ্ধি রাজসিক।

That intellect is rajasic, O Pārtha, by which one understands dharma and adharma, and what should and should not be done, incorrectly.

Rajasic is that intellect, O Pārtha, which apprehends dharma and non-dharma, and the to-be-done and not-to-be-done, in a distorted/incorrect manner.

ayathāvat emphasizes misapprehension rather than total ignorance: rajasic buddhi is active and evaluative but biased—often read as driven by preference, attachment, or self-interest.

ययाby which
यया:
Karana
Rootयद्
धर्मम्dharma, right duty/righteousness
धर्मम्:
Karma
Rootधर्म
अधर्मम्adharma, unrighteousness
अधर्मम्:
Karma
Rootअधर्म
and
:
Root
कार्यम्what ought to be done, duty
कार्यम्:
Karma
Rootकार्य
and
:
Root
अकार्यम्what ought not to be done, forbidden act
अकार्यम्:
Karma
Rootअकार्य
एवindeed, just
एव:
Rootएव
and
:
Root
अयथावत्not as it really is, incorrectly
अयथावत्:
Rootअयथावत्
प्रजानातिknows, understands
प्रजानाति:
Root√ज्ञा (प्र-√ज्ञा)
बुद्धिःintellect, discriminative faculty
बुद्धिः:
Karta
Rootबुद्धि
साthat
सा:
Rootतद्
पार्थO son of Pṛthā (Arjuna)
पार्थ:
Rootपार्थ
राजसीrājasic (of the quality of rajas)
राजसी:
Rootराजस
KrishnaArjuna
GuṇasBuddhi (discernment)Dharma/Adharma
Cognitive biasEthical confusionPassion-driven judgment

FAQs

Rajasic intellect is not passive; it evaluates but is prone to bias, rationalization, and preference-driven distortion—seeing duties through the lens of gain, status, or attachment.

Because rajas is linked with agitation and desire, the verse implies that metaphysical insight and ethical clarity are hindered when cognition is dominated by restless striving.

It contrasts with sattvic buddhi by showing a middle condition: not fully obscured like tamas, but unreliable due to miscalibration of values.

It can be read as a warning about motivated reasoning: decisions may appear “principled” while subtly serving cravings or anxieties; reflective practices can test whether judgments are consistent and evidence-based.