HomeBhagavad GitaCh. 17Shloka 18
Previous Verse
Next Verse

Shloka 18

Shraddhatraya Vibhaga YogaShraddhatraya Vibhaga Yoga

Bhagavad Gita 18 illustration

सत्कारमानपूजार्थं तपो दम्भेन चैव यत् । क्रियते तदिह प्रोक्तं राजसं चलमध्रुवम् ॥ १७.१८ ॥

satkāra-māna-pūjārthaṁ tapo dambhena caiva yat | kriyate tad iha proktaṁ rājasaṁ calam adhruvam || 17.18 ||

Die Askese jedoch, die um der Ehre, Achtung und Verehrung willen und zudem aus Heuchelei vollzogen wird, gilt hier als rājasa (von Rajas), schwankend und unbeständig.

Austerity performed for the sake of honor, respect, and worship, and with hypocrisy, is said to be rājasa, unstable and impermanent.

Tapas done for recognition, esteem, and veneration, and accompanied by pretence, is called rājasa here—fickle and not lasting.

Translations differ mainly in nuance: दम्भ (dambha) ranges from “hypocrisy” to “show/pretence,” and चलम्/अध्रुवम् are rendered “restless,” “unstable,” “inconstant,” highlighting either psychological volatility or the short-lived social payoff.

सत्कारhonour, respectful reception
सत्कार:
Rootसत्कार
मानesteem, recognition
मान:
Rootमान
पूजाworship, veneration
पूजा:
Rootपूजा
अर्थम्for the sake/purpose
अर्थम्:
Rootअर्थ
तपःausterity, penance
तपः:
Karta
Rootतपस्
दम्भेनwith hypocrisy/ostentation
दम्भेन:
Karana
Rootदम्भ
and
:
Root
एवindeed, just
एव:
Rootएव
यत्which (that)
यत्:
Rootयद्
क्रियतेis done, is performed
क्रियते:
Root√कृ
तत्that
तत्:
Rootतद्
इहhere (in this teaching/context)
इह:
Rootइह
प्रोक्तम्is said/declared
प्रोक्तम्:
Root√वच् (प्र+√वच्)
राजसम्rajasic (of the quality of rajas)
राजसम्:
Rootराजस
चलम्unstable, fickle
चलम्:
Rootचल
अध्रुवम्non-enduring, impermanent
अध्रुवम्:
Rootअध्रुव
Krishna
RajasAhaṅkāra (ego-sense)Karma-phala (results)
Critique of performative religiositySocial recognition as motiveInstability of outcome-based practice

FAQs

It describes a motivation pattern driven by external validation; such practice is “unstable” because it depends on fluctuating social feedback.

Because it reinforces ego-identification and attachment to status, it is portrayed as less conducive to inner purification, even if the outward act resembles spiritual discipline.

Within the guṇa framework, the verse distinguishes sincere discipline from display-oriented practice, clarifying that intention determines the quality of tapas.

It can be applied as a critique of “virtue signaling”: evaluate whether charitable or spiritual acts are primarily for image-management rather than ethical transformation.