18.9 Yat, whatever; niyatam karma, daily obligatory duty; kriyate, is performed, accomplished; iti eva, just because; it is karyam, a bounden duty; O Arjuna, tyaktva, by giving up; sangam, attachment; and phalam, the result; ca eva, as well; sah, that; tyagah, renunciation, giving up of attachment and (hankering for) the resutls of daily obligatory duties; matah, is considered; to be sattvikah, based on sattva, arising from sattva. We said that the Lord's utterance is proof of the fruitfulness of daily obligatory duties. Or, even if the niyakarmas be understood (from the Lord's worlds) to be fruitless, still the ignorant man does certainly imagine that the nityakarmas (daily obligatory duites) when performed produce for oneself a result either in the form of purification of the mind or avoidance of evil. As to this, the Lord aborts even that imagination by saying, 'by giving up the result'. Hence it has been well said, 'by giving up attachment and the result'. Objection: Well, is not the threefold relinishment of actions, also called sannyasa, under discussion? As regards this, the renunciation based on tamas and rajas have been stated. Why is the relinishment of attachment and (desire for their) results spoken of here as the third? This is like somody saying, 'Three Brahmanas have come. Of them two are versed in the six auxiliaries [The six auxiliaries are: Siksa (Phonetics), Kalpa (Code of Rituals and Sacrifices), Vyakarana (Grammar), Nirukta (Etymology), Chandas (Meter, Prosody), and Jyotisa (Astronomy).-Tr.] of the Vedas; the third is a Ksatirya!' Reply: This is not wrong, for this is meant as a eulogy on the basis of the common factor of renunciation. Between renunciation of actions and renunciation. of hankering for results, there is, indeed, the similarity of the fact of renunciation. While on this subject, by condemning 'renunciation of actions' on account of its being based on rajas and tamas, the 'renunciation of desire for results of actions' is being praised on account of its being based on sattva, by saying, 'that renunciation is considered to be based on sattva.' The internal organ of a person who is alified for rites and duties, who performs the nityakarmas by giving up attachment and hankering for results, becomes pure on account of its being untainted by attachment to results etc. and refined by the nitya-karmas. When it is pure and tranil, it becomes capable of contemplating on the Self. Since, for that very person whose internal organ has become purified by performing the nityakarmas and who has become ready for the knowledge of the Self, the process by which he can become steadfast in it has to be stated, therefore the Lord says:

18.9 When rites like obligatory and occasional ceremonies and the great sacrifices enjoined on one's station and stage in life, are practised for their own sake, as worship of Myself and as a duty, relinishing possessiveness and fruits - such abandonment is regarded as Sattvika. It is noted in Sattva. The idea is that it is rooted in the knowledge of the meaning of the Sastras as it really is. That Sattva generates the knowledge of things as they really are, has been taught in: 'From Sattva arises knowledge' (14.17), and it will be further declared: 'That reason by which one knows action and renunciation, what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, fear and fearlessness, bondage and release, O Arjuna, is Sattvika' (18.30).

18.9 See Comment under 18.11

18.9 Whatever obligatory action is done, O Arjuna, merely because it ought to be done, abandoning attachment and also the desire for reward, that renunciation is regarded as Sattvic (pure).

18.9 Whatever obligatory duty is performed just because it is a bounden duty, O Arjuna, by giving up attachment and the result as well,-that renunciation is considered to be based on sattva.

18.9 He who performs an obligatory action, because he believes it to be a duty which ought to be done, without any personal desire to do the act or to receive any return - such renunciation is Pure.