Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Shloka (Verse) 1

व्याख्या--'संन्यासं कर्मणां कृष्ण'--कौटुम्बिक स्नेहके कारण अर्जुनके मनमें युद्ध न करनेका भाव पैदा हो गया था। इसके समर्थनमें अर्जुनने पहले अध्यायमें कई तर्क और युक्तियाँ भी सामने रखीं। उन्होंने युद्ध करनेको पाप बताया (गीता 1। 45)। वे युद्ध न करके भिक्षाके अन्नसे जीवन-निर्वाह करनेको श्रेष्ठ समझने लगे (2। 5) और उन्होंने निश्चय करके भगवान्से स्पष्ट कह भी दिया कि मैं किसी भी स्थितिमें युद्ध नहीं करूँगा (2। 9)।प्रायः वक्ताके शब्दोंका अर्थ श्रोता अपने विचारके अनुसार लगाया करते हैं। स्वजनोंको देखकर अर्जुनके हृदयमें जो मोह पैदा हुआ, उसके अनुसार उन्हें युद्धरूप कर्मके त्यागकी बात उचित प्रतीत होने लगी। अतः भगवान्के शब्दोंको वे अपने विचारके अनुसार समझ रहे हैं कि भगवान् कर्मोंका स्वरूपसे त्याग करके प्रचलित प्रणालीके अनुसार तत्त्वज्ञान प्राप्त करनेकी ही प्रशंसा कर रहे हैं।
'पुनर्योगं च शंससि'--चौथे अध्यायके अड़तीसवें श्लोकमें भगवान्ने कर्मयोगीको दूसरे किसी साधनके बिना अवश्यमेव तत्त्वज्ञान प्राप्त होनेकी बात कही है। उसीको लक्ष्य करके अर्जुन भगवान्से कह रहे हैं कि कभी तो आप ज्ञानयोगकी प्रशंसा (4। 33) करते हैं और कभी कर्मयोगकी प्रशंसा करते हैं (4। 41)।

केवल संन्यास करनेमात्रसे ही सिद्धिको प्राप्त नहीं होता है इस वचनसे ज्ञानसहित संन्यासको ही सिद्धिका साधन माना है साथ ही कर्मयोगका भी विधान किया है इसलिये ज्ञानरहित संन्यास कल्याणकर हैअथवा कर्मयोग इन दोनोंकी विशेषता जाननेकी इच्छासे अर्जुन बोला आप पहले तो शास्त्रोक्त बहुत प्रकारके अनुष्ठानरूप कर्मोंका त्याग करनेके लिये कहते हैं अर्थात् उपदेश करते हैं और फिर उनके अनुष्ठानकी अवश्यकर्तव्यतारूप योगको भी बतलाते हैं। इसलिये मुझे यह शङ्का होती है कि इनमेंसे कौनसा श्रेयस्कर है। कर्मोंका अनुष्ठान करना कल्याणकर है अथवा उनका त्याग करना जो श्रेष्ठतर हो उसीका अनुष्ठान करना चाहिये इसलिये इन कर्मसंन्यास और कर्मयोगमें जो श्रेष्ठ हो अर्थात् जिसका अनुष्ठान करनेसे आप यह मानते हैं कि मुझे कल्याणकी प्राप्ति होगी उस भलीभाँति निश्चय किये हुए एक ही अभिप्रायको अलग करके कहिये क्योंकि एक पुरुषद्वारा एक साथ दोनोंका अनुष्ठान होना असम्भव है।

Stating the connection between the preceding and succeeding chapters (4 and 5), and having restated the past context, he begins to demonstrate the intent of Arjuna's question with "Karmani" etc. Having started with "Karmani" (4.18) (in Chapter 4), describing the vision of non-action in action, its praise was expanded—he says this with "Sa yuktah" (4.18). The wise ones call him "Possessed of knowledge, performing all actions for the sake of holding the world together, having all actions burnt by the fire of knowledge (4.19), free from bondage prompted by action (4.20)"—thus intending to state Renunciation as the fruit of knowledge for the wise, the Lord also intended Renunciation as a means for the seeker of knowledge (Vividishu)—he says this with "Jnanagni" (4.37). Starting with "Nirashi" (4.21), "Performing action which is the cause of mere bodily maintenance, being unattached even in bodily maintenance, (the knower) does not become a partaker of the fruit of merit and demerit"—thus He indicated a two-fold Renunciation through the preceding and succeeding chapters (4.21, 22)—he says this with "Shariram" (4.21). Renunciation is indicated even in "Yadrichha" (4.22) etc., because of the instruction regarding its dharma and fruit—he says this with "Yadrichha". Action-renunciation of the one established in Knowledge is shown even by the words of praise preceded by establishing Knowledge as a sacrifice—he says this with "Brahmarpanam" (4.24). For the praise of Wisdom-Sacrifice, having restated various sacrifices (4.25-30), and by stating that they are born of the activities of body etc. (4.32), due to the desire for the fruit of realizing the actionlessness of the Self, the qualification of the seeker of the Self for Renunciation of all actions is implied—he says this with "Karmajan" (4.32). By stating the culmination of all action without remainder in Knowledge, Renunciation of all actions for the seeker is indicated—he says this with "Sarvam" (4.33). Having shown the means of attaining Knowledge like prostration etc. by "Tadviddhi" (4.34), and by saying that by the attained Knowledge—which has excessive greatness—there is cessation of all actions (4.37), the Lord has shown the qualification of the seeker of Knowledge for Renunciation—he says this with "Jnanagnih" (4.37). He whose doubt is cut asunder by Knowledge (4.41), having renounced actions by that very Knowledge, being established, vigilant, and having controlled the body-sense complex, illusory actions do not bind him—this two-fold Renunciation is also stated by the Lord—he says this with "Yoga" (4.41). He concludes the Renunciation stated by the cited verses starting from "Karmani" (4.18) up to "Yogasannyastakarmanam" (4.41)—with "Ityantai" (Ending with these).

"Then, since Action-Renunciation alone is to be respected by the seeker and the wise, performance of action becomes unacceptable?"—anticipating this doubt, he restates the alternative view stated—with "Chhittvainam" (Cutting this - 4.42). "Action and its Renunciation—both are stated, and since performance by one and the same person is possible, there is no contradiction"—anticipating this, and presenting the option "Simultaneously or sequentially?", he refutes the first—with "Ubhayoshcha" (And of both). He refutes the second—with "Kalabhedena" (By difference of time). "If performance of both the stated (paths) by one person is impossible, how is their obligatoriness established?"—anticipating this, he says—"Arthat" (By implication). Meaning, because of the impossibility of performance of both by one person simultaneously or sequentially. "When duty falls on one of them, which one (should it be)?—whence is the decision, since there is no distinction in the proximity (statement) of both?"—anticipating this, he says—"Yat prashasyataram" (Which is more praiseworthy). "Renunciation of actions and Yoga (both) were stated by the Lord; and their performance by combination is not possible; therefore, given that the performance of the one which is superior is to be done, the question is justifiable due to the desire to know that"—thus he concludes—with "Ityevam" (Thus).

"This is not the intent of the questioner; because the performance of Action-Renunciation and Action-Yoga by different persons has been stated, so there is absence of their applicability in one person"—he raises this doubt—with "Nanu". Accepting the objection, he answers—with "Satyameva" (True indeed). "Then of what kind is the intent of the questioner due to which the question proceeds?"—he asks—with "Katham". To point out the questioner's intent that "There is applicability of action and its renunciation in one person," he begins—with "Purvodahritaih" (By the previously cited). "Just as 'One desiring heaven should sacrifice'—here sacrifice is enjoined with the aim of the desirer of heaven, but it is not propounded that 'only he has the right and not another', because of the contingency of sentence-split; similarly, the non-knower (ignorant) agent is restated as obtaining the side of Renunciation; and it is not restricted that Renunciation is 'only for the knower agent', because the injunction of Renunciation is seen even for the ignorant merely by dispassion. Therefore, the question of Arjuna, thinking that action and its renunciation have 'ignorant-agency' (are done by the ignorant), is possible"—this is the purport. "Let there be intention of the duty of Renunciation; still, how does the question proceed from the desire to know the 'more praiseworthy'?"—anticipating this, he says—"Pradhanyam". "Still, when those two are not applicable in one person, how is the question-statement imagined with the stated intent?"—on that he says—"Anatmavidapi" (Even the non-knower). "Like the certainty of action-renunciation for the Knower due to the power of Knowledge; for the other (ignorant) also, given dispassion, due to the necessity of its renunciation, the agent there—this (ignorant one)—being obtained, is restated here. And thus, since the applicability of action and its renunciation in one ignorant person is clear, the proceeding of the question with the stated intent is not contradictory"—this is the meaning. "Why can't 'Knower-agency' of Renunciation be what is intended here?"—anticipating this; "Because of the distinction of meaning as 'exclusion of another agent' and 'injunction of Renunciation', there would be the contingency of sentence-split, so not so"—he says this—with "Iti na punah" (Thus not again).

The word 'Iti' is to indicate the reason being the contingency of sentence-split. "What of that?"—anticipating this, he states the result—with "Evam" (Thus). "Thinking that 'Action-performance and Action-renunciation also have ignorant-agency', Arjuna's question due to the desire to know the more praiseworthy is not unjustifiable"—this is the connection.

"If their performance by combination were possible, how would there be desire to know the more praiseworthy?"—anticipating this, he says—"Purvoktena" (By the previously stated). "By the manner stated in 'And of both' etc., due to the mutual contradiction of action and its renunciation, performance by combination has no scope"—this is the meaning. "Let it be then, that any one of them is to be performed; so why does the question proceed with the stated intent?"—anticipating this, he says—"Anyatarasya" (Of either). "In the applicability of both, when combination is impossible, in accepting one, since the 'distinction' (superiority) is to be sought, the question is justifiable with the stated intent"—this is the meaning.

"For this reason also, the intent of the questioner appears to be 'Which is better between Renunciation and Karma Yoga which have ignorant-agency?'"—he says this—with "Prativachana" (Answer). "What is that answer, or how is its exposition?"—he asks—with "Katham". There he shows the answer—with "Sannyasa" (5.2). He states its exposition—with "Etat" (This). "Those two"—meaning the causing of highest good and the superiority of Karma Yoga—this is the meaning. He asks for the discrimination of the division of merit and defect—with "Kimcha" (And what). "Therefore, in this first view what is the defect, or in this second view what is the fruit?"—this is the meaning of the question.

There the Siddhantin shows the defect in the first view—with "Atra" (Here) etc. He expands on that very unjustifiability through negative concomitance (Vyatireka)—with "Yadi" (If) etc. "Statement of causing highest good"—here it should be seen as "through a sequence/indirectly"; "Statement of superiority"—is because the counter-correlate (Renunciation) is unsupported (helpless), and this (Karma Yoga) is for the sake of Knowledge through purification—this is the meaning. Having shown the impossibility of (the option of) Action-Renunciation and Action-Yoga for the Self-knower, he raises an objection—with "Atraha" (Here they say). The objector reflects for determination—with "Kim" (What) etc. "Even if one is impossible, the question arises due to doubt"—he says this—with "Yada cha" (And when). "Thinking that the impossibility of some one of them will happen (perhaps?)"—anticipating this; "Impossibility without a reason would be an over-extension (logical fault)"—thinking thus, he says—"Asambhavah" (Impossibility).

The Siddhantin shows the impossibility of Karma Yoga for the Self-knower with reason—with "Atra" (Here). Expanding the summary sentence, he expands on "Self-knower-hood"—with "Janmadi" (Birth etc.). What was said as his "having removed false knowledge," he now manifests—with "Samyak" (Rightly). He expands on what was said by "Rooted in erroneous knowledge" etc.—with "Nishkriya" (Actionless). "Having stated the Renunciation as described, the absence of Karma Yoga which is contrary to that is propounded"—this is the connection. Illuminating the contrariety, he qualifies Karma Yoga itself—with "Mithyajnana" (False knowledge). "False (also) and that Ignorance (also)"—thus beginningless indefinable Ignorance; rooted in that, the pride of doership in the Self as "I am the doer"; born of that, "of that"—this is the meaning. Having stated the Renunciation as described, he states the reason for propounding the impossibility of the described Karma Yoga—with "Samyagjnana" (Right Knowledge). "Where is the propounding of its absence?"—that he says—with "Iha" (Here). Making the stated reason the cause, he states the result regarding the (im)possibility of Karma Yoga for the Self-knower—with "Yasmat" (Since).

To make clear what was said in "Here and there in this scripture..." etc., he asks—with "Keshu keshu" (In which ones). He shows those very places—with "Atra" (Here). "Since Renunciation is propounded in the places describing the nature of the Self, if Renunciation is intended for the Self-knower; then why is Karma Yoga also not for him? Because the context is the same"—he doubts—with "Nanu cha". He cites the propounding of Karma Yoga in the context of Self-knowledge—with "Tadyatha" (That is as). Given the possibility of Karma Yoga even for the Self-knower from the context, he states the result—with "Atashcha" (And therefore). "Even if context-reading is established as a means to Self-knowledge, it is impossible to imagine action opposed to logic after Knowledge"—he refutes thus—with "Atrochyate" (Here it is said). Meaning, due to the mutual contradiction between Right Knowledge and False Knowledge, and between their effects—cessation of delusion and existence of delusion—action rooted in the delusion of doership etc. is not possible after Right Knowledge. He states another reason for the impossibility of Karma Yoga for the Self-knower—with "Jnanayogena" (By Jnana Yoga). "For this reason also, Karma Yoga after Knowledge is not logical for the Self-knower"—he says—with "Kritakrityatvena" (By being one who has done what was to be done). He states another reason for "There is no action for the knower"—with "Tasya" (His). "Then, just as Karma Yoga is to be abandoned for the Knower, it should be abandonable for the Seeker also; because by the attainment of Knowledge, his goal also would be accomplished?"—anticipating this; "The Seeker has the need for Karma Yoga"—he says—with "Na karmanam" (Not of actions). Because the nature of the whole (Knowledge) is not accomplished without the part (action) which aids its nature; for the seeker of Knowledge, Karma Yoga which is the cause of Knowledge through purification etc. is to be adopted—this is the meaning. "Then, let Karma Yoga be sought even by Knowers as being helpful to the fruit of Knowledge?"—anticipating this, he says—"Yogarudhasya" (Of the one ascended to Yoga).

"In the absence of action for the one in whom Right Knowledge has arisen, due to the impossibility of even the action which is the cause of bodily maintenance, his bodily maintenance would not happen; and in its non-existence, whence Jivanmukti? And in its absence, whose instructorship (would exist)? And in the absence of instruction, whence the rise of knowledge?"—anticipating this, he says—"Shariram" (Bodily). "If bodily maintenance is accepted even for the wise, then there would be pride of doership even in seeing, hearing, etc. prompted by that alone?"—anticipating this, he says—"Naiva" (Not at all). By "Tattvavit" (Knower of Truth)—because of the instruction of the eternal non-duty of the idea "I do" due to being of collected mind—this is the connection. "And regarding the statement that in allowing action for the bodily maintenance of the wise, there would be pride of doership in it too"—there he says—"Sharira" (Body). "For the knower of the reality of the Self, due to the idea 'I do not do' even in them, and due to the instruction of non-doership in 'I do nothing at all' etc., there is no possibility of pride of doership"—this is the meaning. "In the absence of contemplation of the stated instruction, there would be Karma Yoga for the wise also through the natural idea 'I do'?"—anticipating this, he says—"Atmatattva". "Although the wise may sometimes not contemplate the stated instruction, still due to contradiction with the Knowledge of Reality, it is impossible to assume false knowledge or action caused by it for him"—this is the meaning.

"Since Renunciation and Karma Yoga having 'Knower-agency' are impossible, (the idea) that 'they cause highest good and one is superior' is illogical"—since this is established, he accepts the second view (ignorant-agency)—with "Yasmat" (Since) etc. "From his (ignorant's) Action-Renunciation, the statement of superiority of Karma Yoga is made"—this is the connection. (Objection) "Now, Renunciation is born for the one of pure intellect from Karma Yoga, therefore it (Renunciation) is superior; how is the statement of superiority of Karma Yoga over that (Renunciation) logical?"—there he says—"Purvokta". He clarifies the distinction itself—with "Satyeva" (Only when there is). "Only when there is knowledge of agency (right) in hearing etc. prescribed for one's Ashrama, the statement of superiority of Karma Yoga over Renunciation—which is regarding a part of actions taken up in the previous Ashrama—is contrary to Smriti like 'A Brahmin does not have such wealth' etc.?"—anticipating this, he says—"Yamaniyama". "Non-cruelty, forgiveness, truth, non-violence, control, straightforwardness, love, clarity, sweetness, and non-anger are the ten Yamas. Charity, sacrifice, austerity, meditation, study, control of generative organ, vow, fasting, silence, and bathing are the ten Niyamas"—due to the impossibility of performance (of Renunciation) characterized by the stated Yamas and Niyamas and other Ashrama duties, the statement of superiority of Karma Yoga over the said (mere) Renunciation is logical—this is the meaning. And by the logic of "Not indeed anyone" (3.5), due to Karma Yoga being easier compared to the other, the statement of its superiority is consistent—he says this—with "Sukaratvena cha" (And due to easiness).

He concludes the meaning established from the consideration of the meaning of the answer sentence—with "Ityevam" (Thus). "Renunciation and Karma Yoga—which are mutually contradictory and impossible to be performed by combination—in the duty of one of them, since the 'more praiseworthy' has that nature (of being duty); and since that nature is undetermined; the question should be due to the desire to determine that"—thus, by reviewing the meaning of the question sentence, the intent of the questioner is as instructed before; and since it is ascertained by the exposition of the answer meaning also, the justifiability of the question is established—this is the meaning. (Objection) "Now, since the stated question was decided by the Lord in the third (chapter), there is no scope for question and answer here?"—anticipating this, he shows again briefly the same connection stated in detail—with "Jyayasi chet" (3.1) etc. "Since Sankhya and Yoga were decided as being performable by different persons, there is no fitness for question again"—this is the meaning. "From this (reason) also, they are not the subject of the question"—he says—with "Na cha" (And not). By the qualification of the particle 'Eva' (alone), the 'proven-ness' (Siddha-sadhanatva) of Renunciation with Knowledge is intended by the Lord; and by the injunction of Karma Yoga in "Cutting this doubt... take refuge in Yoga" (4.42), its 'proven-ness' is also desired; and thus, due to being decided, the question does not establish them as its subject—this is the meaning. "With what intent then would be the question?"—anticipating this; "Due to the desire to know the praise-worthiness of Karma Yoga over Renunciation without Knowledge"—he says—with "Jnanarahita" (Without knowledge). Having thus shown the questioner's intent, and stating the justifiability of the question, he raises the question—with "Sannyasam" (Renunciation). "Then (maybe) the two are to be performed by you?"—anticipating this; "Because the inability for that was stated, 'that this (one) is it'—having decided thus, it should be spoken for the sake of performing the more praiseworthy"—he says—with "Yacchreyah" (Which is better). "Abandonment of desire-motivated and forbidden actions is being spoken by me, not of all?"—anticipating this; "Due to seeing the distinction (opposite) in 'Non-action in action' etc. (4.18), not so"—he says—with "Shastriyanam" (Of scriptural actions). "Let it be then abandonment of all actions, scriptural and non-scriptural, without remainder?"—(Answer) "No"—he says—with "Punah" (Again). "Then both Action-abandonment and its Yoga are to be adopted?"—anticipating this; "Due to contradiction, not so"—intending this, he says—with "Atah" (Therefore). "Because the impossibility of performance of both by one is stated, and because (their) obligatoriness is stated, doubt arises"—he clarifies that very doubt—with "Kim karma" (Is action) etc. "What is the purpose of the desire to know the more praiseworthy?"—anticipating this, he says—with "Prashasyataram cha" (And more praiseworthy). "Only if that (superior one) is to be performed, the question has scope"—he says—with "Atashcha" (And therefore). He qualifies that very 'more praiseworthy'—with "Yadanushthanat" (By the performance of which). "Tell me that one, the other"—this is the connection. "When both are stated, why is it enjoined that 'one should be spoken'?"—there he says—"Saha" (Together). "Due to the mutual contradiction of action and its renunciation"—this is the meaning.

Having heard the renunciation of all actions through verses like "Free from hope and with controlled mind and body" (4.21), "Having abandoned all possessions," "Performing action merely for the body, he incurs no sin" (4.21), and "Content with what comes by chance" (4.22) etc.; and having also heard of the Yoga of action through "Having cut this doubt... take refuge in Yoga, arise, O Bharata" (4.42); and because of the impossibility of both being performed together by one person due to their mutual contradiction, like 'standing' and 'moving'; and due to the absence of an injunction for them based on a difference in time (sequential performance); by implication, when the duty of (performing) one of the two obtains; Arjun spoke with the desire to know "Which is better for me, the ignorant one with an impure mind, out of these two—Sannyasa and Karma Yoga?"—beginning with "Sannyasam" (Renunciation...).

Sannyasa means the complete abandonment of actions; and again the performance of those scriptural special rites (Karma Yoga). "Desiring this very world (Self), monks renounce," "Brahmins desire to know this very (Self) through recitation of Vedas, sacrifice, charity, and austerity consisting of fasting"—through such previously stated statements rooted in the Vedas, You praise, meaning You speak of (Renunciation).

By addressing Him as "Krishna", he implies: "Should abandonment be done by me, or should action be performed? In this matter, You are attracting (drawing) my mind here and there (with different statements)."

Therefore, a doubt arises in me as to which of the two is better; hence, tell me decisively that one of these two which is more praiseworthy, to make me free from doubt.

He (The Lord) expounds specifically on the very Karma Yoga stated in the third chapter through this chapter. Sannyasa (Renunciation) was stated by "Content with what comes by chance" (4.22) etc., and Karma Yoga was stated by "Perform action alone" (4.15) etc.

He is 'Krishna' because of His attracting (drawing) all the worlds through governing (ruling/controlling) etc. And that has been stated in the Maha-Kurma Purana: "Since, O Lord of Devas, You attract (draw) the entire universe by governing it, therefore the sages who speak of Brahman call You 'Krishna'."

The Lord Himself will state the meaning of the word 'Sannyasa'. This is the intent of the question: If Sannyasa is superior in merit (Shreyas), then why the war (action), which is slightly opposed to Sannyasa?

In the third chapter, having introduced two types of steadfastness (Nishtha) belonging to different qualified aspirants with "In this world there is a twofold steadfastness," the obligatoriness of the steadfastness in action (Karma-Nishtha) was stated with great insistence as being a limb (subsidiary) to the steadfastness in knowledge (Jnana-Nishtha) through verses like "A man does not attain freedom from action by non-commencement of actions" and "Your right is in action alone" etc.

But in the fourth chapter, it was stated with indifference/easiness that for those in whom right vision has arisen, action performed is indeed non-action, because agency etc. are sublated (negated) by knowledge; therefore, by them, action or Sannyasa should be performed like a 'futile gesture' (without binding intent).

Now, in the fifth and sixth chapters, it is stated that by the ignorant seeker of knowledge, before the rise of dispassion (Vairagya), action alone is to be performed. But when Vairagya is accomplished, having performed Renunciation of action (Karma-Sannyasa) to remove visible distractions, Yoga should be performed for the arising of knowledge.

There, in the fourth chapter, Sannyasa was prescribed to the single person, me (Arjuna), by "Having abandoned all possessions," and Karma Yoga by "Take refuge in Yoga." And the simultaneous performance of these two by the single person, me, is not possible, like 'standing' and 'moving', because they are mutually contradictory—thinking thus, Arjuna spoke beginning with "Sannyasam" (Renunciation...).

O Krishna (Dispeller/Attractor of sins), how do You praise, i.e., speak of, both Sannyasa and Karma Yoga to me, the seeker of knowledge, which are mutually contradictory? By the word "Punah" (Again), it is understood that previously also, You, being the author of the Vedas, have ordained these two. And such are Your Sruti and Smriti: "Desiring this very world (Self), monks renounce"; and "Having seen the world thus as sapless, with the desire to see the Essence, they renounce without marrying, established in supreme dispassion." Also: "Brahmins desire to know this very (Self) through recitation of Vedas, sacrifice, charity, and austerity consisting of fasting"; and "By great sacrifices and sacrifices, this body is made Brahmic (Brahmi)." 'Brahmic' means fit for the vision of Brahman. Therefore, among these two, which are praiseworthy due to being ordained by scripture, tell me decisively that one which is 'Shreyah'—more praiseworthy/superior. This is the question.

Arjuna said: You praise the renunciation of actions, Knowledge Yoga, and again Action Yoga. This is meant: In the second chapter, having propounded that 'for the seeker of liberation, first Karma Yoga alone is to be done; for one whose impurities of the inner organ are destroyed by Karma Yoga, Self-realization is to be done by Jnana Yoga'; again in the third and fourth (chapters), 'even for one who has attained the state of qualification for Jnana Yoga, adherence to action (Karma-nishtha) alone is better; that alone, independent of adherence to knowledge (Jnana-nishtha), is the sole means for Self-attainment'—thus You praise adherence to action.

Therefore, regarding the status of being the means for Self-attainment between these two—Jnana Yoga and Karma Yoga—that one which is 'Shreyah', i.e., superior, due to ease and quickness—as is well ascertained—tell that to me.

Having resolved the doubt of the Victorious one (Arjuna) regarding the renunciation of action and the Yoga of action, He spoke of Liberation in the Fifth (Chapter) for the self-controlled ascetic.

"Having cut the doubt born of ignorance with the sword of knowledge, take refuge in Karma Yoga"—this was stated (previously in 4.42). Perceiving a contradiction between the earlier and later statements there, Arjuna spoke beginning with "Sannyasam" (Renunciation...).

By texts like "But he who rejoices only in the Self..." (3.17) and "All action in its entirety, O Partha..." (4.33), You speak of the renunciation of action for the knower. And again, by saying "Having cut the doubt with the sword of knowledge, take refuge in Yoga," You speak of Yoga. And renunciation of action and Yoga of action are not possible for one person at the very same time, because they are of contradictory natures.

Therefore, between these two, when only one is to be performed, tell me decisively that one which is 'Shreyah'—superior—for me.

Now, to demonstrate the connection of the fifth [chapter] partially with the third and fourth, and to show the purport in the unmentioned portion of the fifth by distinguishing between the mentioned and unmentioned parts, he says "In the fourth chapter..." "Karma Yoga being of the form of Knowledge" etc.—this is to indicate that this is the main meaning of the fourth chapter and to show the place of connection. "In the third alone"—meaning, in the form of instruction on duty alone.

He states the meaning of the fifth with "Now." Here is the summary verse: "The ease and quickness of Karma Yoga, some of its varieties, and the mode of Brahman-knowledge are spoken of in the fifth chapter" (Gitarthasangraha 9).

Here, although "Ease and Quickness" are summarized, the mention of only 'Quickness' in the Bhashya is to indicate that 'Ease', being already stated in the third chapter, is restated in the fifth as being conducive to 'Quickness'; but 'Quickness' was not stated there, so it is directly propounded here. By "Karma Yoga..." etc., as an explanation of both "Some of its varieties" and "The mode of Brahman-knowledge," the partial connection with the third and fourth is stated. "From adherence to Knowledge"—here is the ablative case. There, by the word "Mode" (prakara) and by the statement "is purified," non-repetition is shown through the purport being in the unmentioned part. "Knowledge rooted in that"—meaning Knowledge that has reached the state of fruition is intended.

Now, contemplating on "Know that by prostration" (4.34), desiring to know the unmentioned expected part, and asking about the very meaning already stated, Arjuna said "Renunciation." With the intention that the words 'Sannyasa' and 'Yoga' here refer to the Sankhya and Yoga which are the context and will be described, and not to other meanings, he says "Renunciation of actions means Jnana Yoga." "Of actions" is connected with both.

(Objection) "Now, the abandon-ability of Karma Yoga is nowhere stated, rather it alone has been expanded as being acceptable; nor has the praise of Jnana Yoga been done anywhere by which 'You praise Renunciation... and Yoga' could be said; even if praise of both is done, it should be considered as an 'option', not an occasion for asking about the superiority of one over the other?" To this he says "This is meant." Up to "having propounded," the intent of "Renunciation of actions" is explained.

Karma Yoga is for the removal of impurities; upon their removal, abandoning Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga is to be adopted; therefore, Jnana Yoga alone is the direct means to Self-realization—this was propounded in the second [chapter]; this is the purport. To remove the delusion that "You praise Yoga again for one who has renounced before," he states the connection of the word "Punah" (again) with "Shamsasi" (You praise) by "In the third and fourth." "In the second" and "In the third and fourth" are stated by the Bhashyakara through his own research/connection, not as a repetition of Arjuna's words. Here, if Karma Yoga is to be abandoned by one whose impurities are destroyed, how can it be acceptable? And if Jnana Yoga is the means to realization, how is that possible (through Karma Yoga) without interval?—this is the idea.

"Action is indeed superior to non-action" (3.8)—since it is praised as superior, with this intention he says "You praise." "There" (Tatra)—meaning when direct instrument-ality is intended for both. "Of these two"—here the word "Ekam" (one) refers to one determined among them. There, the neuter gender is due to intending the general form or as an adjective to the word "Shreyah".

"Due to ease and quickness"—meaning since the fruit is one, superiority based on that (fruit) is illogical here; this is the purport. "Shreyah sunishchitam" is the connection. Meaning ascertained as superior. Being an adverb (to the verb 'tell') would be meaningless; with this intention he says "Superior" (Shreshtham). "Sunishchitam" (Well-ascertained)—since the word "Shreyah" is frequently used for fruit etc. also, to exclude that, and to manifest the meaning of the root and suffix in accordance with the question of comparison (taratamya), it is explained by the word "Shreshtha" (Best/Superior). Here, since an option is obtained due to being means to the same fruit, the statement of superiority is due to the association with qualities like ease etc.

अर्जुन के इस प्रश्न से स्पष्ट होता है कि अनजाने में ही वह अपनी नैराश्य अवस्था से बहुत कुछ मुक्त हुआ भगवान् के उपदेश को ध्यानपूर्वक श्रवण करके विचार भी करने लगा था। स्वभाव से क्रियाशील होने के कारण अर्जुन को कर्मयोग रुचिकर तथा स्वीकार्य था। परन्तु अनेक स्थानों पर श्रीकृष्ण द्वारा अन्य यज्ञों की अपेक्षा ज्ञान अथवा कर्मसंन्यास को अधिक श्रेष्ठ प्रतिपादित करने से अर्जुन के मन में सन्देह उत्पन्न हुआ और यही कारण था कि वह स्वयं के लिए किसी मार्ग का निश्चय नहीं कर सका। अत इसका निश्चय कराना ही अर्जुन के प्रश्न का प्रयोजन है।और एक बात यह भी है कि मानसिक उन्माद का रोगी उस रोग के प्रभाव से कुछ मुक्त होने पर भी शीघ्र ही पूर्ण आत्मविश्वास नहीं जुटा पाता। यह सबका अनुभव है कि भयंकर स्वप्न से जागे हुए व्यक्ति को पुन संयमित होकर निद्रा अवस्था में आने के उपक्रम में कुछ समय लग जाता है। अर्जुन की ठीक ऐसी ही स्थिति थी। मानसिक तनाव एवं उन्माद की स्थिति से बाहर आने पर भी अपने सारथी श्रीकृष्ण के उपदेश को पूर्णरूप से समझने तथा विचार करने में वह स्वयं को असमर्थ पा रहा था। अर्जुन इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचा था कि भगवान् उसके सामने कर्मयोग तथा कर्मसंन्यास के रूप में दो विकल्प प्रस्तुत कर रहे हैं। अत वह श्रीकृष्ण से यह जानना चाहता है कि उसके आत्मकल्याण के लिये इन दोनों में से कौन सा एक निश्चित मार्ग अनुकरणीय है। इस अध्याय का प्रयोजन यह बताने का है कि ये दो मार्ग विकल्प रूप नहीं है और न ही परस्पर पूरक होते हुये युगपत अनुष्ठेय हैं।कर्मयोग तथा कर्मसंन्यास इनका इसी क्रम में आचरण करना है और न कि एक साथ दोनों का। यही इस अध्याय का विषय है।

"Sannyasam" (Renunciation...). Renunciation is principal,

yet again Yoga (is spoken of)—thus is the question of the one filled with doubt.

Explaining the meaning propounded in this chapter based on its connection with the previous, he says "Tritiya" (In the third...) etc. Karma Yoga is known as performing actions and the knowledge of their nature as Brahman—to exclude this (interpretation), the word "Eva" (alone) is used. The performance of duties prescribed for one's Varna and Ashrama with the intellect of offering to God, abandoning the desire for results etc., is alone expounded here as Karma Yoga; because that alone was spoken of previously, not another, as it is not the subject matter. And this Karma Yoga has two parts: abandonment of desires etc., and performance of action with the intellect of offering to God. There, the first is expressed by the word 'Sannyasa', and the second is expressed by the word 'Karma Yoga' in a secondary (figurative) sense; with this intent, He clarifies the characteristics of Yoga and Sannyasa—that this has been said elsewhere—(Arjuna speaks) with "Sannyasam" etc.

Where was it said that Arjuna is restating? To this he says "Yadrichha" etc. By saying "Karma-yogam", it is implied that "Karmanam" (of actions) relates to the word "Yoga". And thus, it is indicated that the explanation "Sannyasa means abandonment of actions" is incorrect. The syntactic connection is with "Shamsasi" (You praise). Since the meaning stated in the fourth chapter is the seed for the arising of that chapter, the sequence of this (fifth chapter) after the fourth is proper, even though it expands on the meaning of the third chapter—this is also made known by this.

To refute the notion that the word 'Krishna' implies only a specific color (or caste), he says "Niyamanadina" (By controlling etc.). He refutes the explanation that the meaning of the word 'Sannyasa' is the abandonment of all actions in the form of Nitya (daily), Naimittika (occasional), Kamya (desire-prompted), and Nishiddha (prohibited)—with "Sannyasa" etc. Because by "He is to be known as a constant Sannyasi" (5.3), the word Sannyasa has been explained differently by the Lord Himself; therefore, the other explanation (of total abandonment) is contrary to that—this is the meaning.

If the abandonment of all actions is not the meaning of the word Sannyasa, but only the abandonment of hatred etc., then due to the absence of its contradiction with Yoga, the question regarding 'Shreyas' (better) based on the intent of contradiction between Sannyasa and Yoga would be inappropriate—to this he says "Ayam" (This/Arjuna). Here, having restated the Gita's term 'Shreyas' as it stands, it is explained as 'Adhika' (more/superior) in conformity with the word Sannyasa. Objection: "This is terrible (Ghora)" was asked, and "It is better (Shreyan)" was the answer (previously)—this is true. That is why 'Ishat' (slightly) was said here. Therefore, abandoning that (action), Sannyasa alone should be performed; why is war enjoined even while accepting the defect?—this remains the intent (of the question).

By the two chapters (3rd and 4th), the decision regarding Action and Knowledge was made; now, by the two (5th and 6th), the decision regarding Action and its Renunciation is being made. In the third chapter, having been asked by Arjuna with "If You consider knowledge superior to action...", the Lord made the decision with "In this world there is a twofold steadfastness spoken by Me before" etc., based on the arrangement of difference in qualifications (Adhikari), since the option (Vikalpa) or combination (Samuccaya) of Knowledge and Action is impossible. And thus: Action, which falls under the qualification of the ignorant, is not combined with Knowledge, because like light and darkness, their simultaneous existence is impossible, and because Knowledge is opposed to that (Action) as it removes the notion of difference which is the cause of qualification for Action. Nor is there an option (between them), because of the absence of 'sameness of purpose'; the effect of Knowledge—destruction of ignorance—cannot be accomplished by Action. As per the Shruti: "Knowing Him alone one goes beyond death; there is no other path for going." Once Knowledge arises, the effect/work of action is not required at all—this was stated in "Whatever use there is in a reservoir..." (2.46). And thus, it being certain that the Knower has no right/obligation to action, whether there is performance of action in the form of 'futile gesture' due to Prarabdha Karma, or renunciation of all actions—this was indisputably decided in the fourth chapter.

But actions are to be performed by the ignorant one for the sake of the arising of knowledge through the purification of the mind—from the Shruti "Brahmins desire to know this very (Self) through recitation of Vedas, sacrifice, charity, and austerity consisting of fasting," and also from the Lord's statement "All action in its entirety, O Partha, culminates in knowledge." Thus, all actions are for the sake of knowledge; likewise, renunciation of all actions is also heard (in scripture) to be for the sake of knowledge—in texts like "Desiring this very world (Self), monks renounce"; "Having become calm, self-controlled, withdrawn, patient and collected, he should see the Self in the Self alone"; "For that Knowable is to be known only by renunciation; the state of the Renunciate is the innermost and supreme"; "Having abandoned truth and untruth, pleasure and pain, the Vedas, this world and the next, one should seek the Self."

There, a combination of Action and its Abandonment—which are remotely helpful (Aradupakaraka) and directly helpful (Sannipatyopakaraka) respectively—is not possible, like that of the Prayaja sacrifice and Avaghata (threshing), because of the absence of simultaneity due to being contradictory. Nor can there be an option (Vikalpa) between Action and its Abandonment on the grounds that they have the same purpose of merely 'Self-knowledge', like the taking or non-taking of the Sodashi vessel (in the Atiratra sacrifice) which have the same purpose; because there is an absence of 'sameness of purpose' due to the difference in the 'means/door' (Dvara). For, the means of Action is indeed the 'Unseen' (Adrishta) in the form of destruction of sin; whereas the means of Renunciation is indeed 'Seen' (Drishta) in the form of providing the opportunity for inquiry by the absence of all distractions. The 'Niyama-Apurva' (unseen merit from following a rule) is not the instigator (Prayojaka) here because it is inherent in the visible result, like in Avaghata. And thus, even if the 'remotely helpful' and 'directly helpful'—which have unseen results—were for the sake of a single principal goal, there is indeed no option (Vikalpa). Because that (lack of option) applies to Prayaja and Avaghata etc. as well.

Therefore, both are to be performed in sequence. Even there, if the performance of action is after Renunciation, then due to accepting the previous stage of life (Grihastha) which was abandoned, there is disqualification for action due to being 'one who has fallen from yoga' (Arudha-patita), and the previous Renunciation becomes futile because it (Renunciation) does not have an 'unseen' purpose (it has a seen purpose which is lost if one goes back to action). And if the right to Knowledge is attained by the first performed Renunciation itself, then the performance of action at a time subsequent to that is futile. Therefore, the opinion of the Lord is that in the beginning, upon the purification of the mind through the performance of desireless action with the intellect of offering to God, when the desire to know (Vividisha) becomes firm through intense dispassion (Vairagya), the Renunciation of all actions should be done for the sake of inquiry into the Vedanta sentences in the form of hearing (Shravana), reflection (Manana) etc.

And so it is said: "A man does not attain freedom from action by non-commencement of actions." And it will be said: "For the sage who wishes to ascend to Yoga, action is said to be the means; for the same one who has ascended to Yoga, Quiescence (Shama) is said to be the means." Here 'Yoga' means the desire to know (Vividisha) preceded by intense dispassion. This has been stated by the Vartikakara (Suresvaracharya): "For the specific accomplishment of the desire to know the Innermost Self, (there are) recitation of Vedas etc.; but for the attainment of Brahman, they desire the abandonment of those (actions)—on the strength of the Shruti." And the Smriti says: "The ripening of impurities (Kashaya) is actions, and Knowledge is the supreme goal; when the impurity is ripened by actions, then Knowledge proceeds." And in the Mokshadharma (Mahabharata): "Having ripened the impurity and having stayed in the three stages (Ashramas), one should go forth into the supreme state, the unsurpassed Renunciation." "With purified senses, this pure-minded one attains Liberation (Moksha) indeed in the first Ashrama (stage), having passed through many wombs of transmigration." "Having attained that, for the liberated, wise man who has accomplished his purpose, what object/purpose could be supremely desired in the three Ashramas?" Here 'Moksha' means Vairagya. By this, both sequential and non-sequential Renunciation are shown. And thus the Shruti: "Having completed studenthood, he should become a householder; from the house, becoming a forest-dweller, he should renounce; or otherwise, he should renounce from studenthood itself, or from the house, or from the forest; the very day he becomes dispassionate, that very day he should renounce."

Therefore, for the ignorant in the state of non-dispassion, there is only performance of action. For the same person, in the state of dispassion, Renunciation is for the sake of Knowledge by providing the opportunity for Hearing (Shravana) etc.—thus, in order to explain Action and its Abandonment by qualifying the ignorant person based on the 'difference in state', the fifth and sixth chapters are begun. The Renunciation of the Knower (Vidvat-Sannyasa) is established by the very fact/power of Knowledge, so due to the absence of doubt, it is not discussed here.

There, since both Action and its Abandonment are enjoined for the single ignorant seeker as being for the sake of Knowledge, and since the simultaneous performance of these two contradictory things is impossible, Arjuna spoke, doubting "What should be performed by me, the seeker, now?"—"O Krishna"—form of eternal Consciousness and Bliss, or remover of the sorrow of devotees. You speak, through the mouth of the Vedas, of 'Sannyasa'—abandonment—of Nitya (daily) and Naimittika (occasional) actions enjoined by Shrutis like "As long as one lives..." for the ignorant seeker; again, You praise 'Yoga'—in the form of performance of action—which is contrary to that. (Implied contradiction) By the two sentences: "Desiring this very world (Self), monks renounce" and "Brahmins desire to know this very (Self) through recitation of Vedas, sacrifice...". Or by the two sentences of the Gita: "Free from hope... having abandoned all possessions... performing action merely for the body, he incurs no sin" (4.21) and "Having cut this doubt... take refuge in Yoga, arise, O Bharata" (4.42). There, because of the injunction of both Action and its Abandonment for the single ignorant person, and since the simultaneous performance of both is impossible, among these two—Action and its Abandonment—which one do You consider 'Shreyah'—more praiseworthy—Action or its Abandonment? Tell me that one, Your opinion, decisively for performance.

Dhananjaya (Arjuna), having heard of Renunciation and Karma Yoga spoken by Sri Krishna, attained doubt and asked a question again.

Arjuna said: "Sannyasam" etc. O Krishna—Eternal Bliss, fit for bestowing only bliss!—You praise the Sannyasa (abandonment) of actions beginning from "Actions do not taint Me" (4.14) up to "Even acting, he is not bound" (4.22); and again, You praise Yoga with "Take refuge in Yoga" (4.42).

Between these two, tell me one that is well-ascertained and determined. "Cha" (And) again—from both of these, whatever "one other" (eka anyad) implies "Shreyah" (better)—which would be in the form of Bhakti (Devotion)—tell that to me, who am Yours, in a well-ascertained manner (to remove doubt).

"Sannyasam"—the abandonment of actions which are scriptural and are specific rites to be performed—You "shamsasi," i.e., praise or speak of—this is the meaning. "Punah" (Again), You praise "Yoga"—the performance of those very actions—as being obligatory.

Therefore, I have a doubt as to which is "Shreyah" (better) for me: Is the performance of action better, or the abandonment of it? And that which is more praiseworthy is what should be performed.

And therefore, whichever is "Shreyah"—more praiseworthy—between these two, Karma-Sannyasa and Karma-Yoga; by the performance of which You think my attainment of the highest good would occur; tell me that "Ekam"—one of the two—decisively as being Your intention, because it is impossible for them to be performed together by a single person.

Expressing His own intent for the sake of a decision, the Blessed Lord spoke.

Not understanding that the doctrine of Sankhya and Yoga has a single purpose, and that performing one's own duty is (merely) external, he asks about the capable means for the determination of his own highest good.

Arjuna said: "Sannyasam" etc. You speak of the Sannyasa (abandonment) of the very actions of the Sankhyas, and also (their) Yoga (performance). There, You speak of the connection of actions again in Yoga.

Indeed, Karma-Sannyasa and Karma-Yoga are not possible for one person at the very same time, because they are of contradictory natures.

Therefore, tell me one well-ascertained good (Shreyas) for me.

संन्यासम् renunciation? कर्मणाम् of actions? कृष्ण O Krishna? पुनः again? योगम् Yoga? च and? शंससि (Thou) praisest? यत् which? श्रेयः better? एतयोः of these two? एकम् one? तत् that? मे to me? ब्रूहि tell? सुनिश्चितम् conclusively.Commentary Thou teachest renunciation of actions and also their performance. This has confused me. Tell decisively now which is better. It is not possible for a man to resort to both of them at the same time. Yoga here means Karma Yoga. (Cf.III.2)

O Krsna,) samsasi, You praise, i.e. speak of; sannyasam, renunciation; karmanam, of actions, of performance of various kinds of rites enjoined by the scriptures; punah ca, and again; You praise yogam, yoga, the obligatory performance of those very rites! Therefore I have a doubt as to which is better-Is the performance of actions better, or their rejection? And that which is better should be undertaken. And hence, bruhi, tell; mam, me; suniscitam, for certain, as the one intended by You; tat ekam, that one-one of the two, since performance of the two together by the same person is impossible; yat, which; is sreyah, better, more commendable; etayoh, between these two, between the renunciation of actions and the performance of actions [Ast. reads karma-yoga-anusthana (performance of Karma-yoga) in place of karma-anusthana (performance of actions).-Tr.], by undertaking which you think I shall acire what is beneficial.
While stating His own opinion in order to arrive at a conclusion-

Arjuna said 'You praise the renunciation of actions, i.e., Jnana Yoga at one time, and next Karma Yoga'. This is what is objected to: In the second chapter, you have said that Karma Yoga alone should be practised first by an aspirant for release; and that the vision of the self should be achieved by means of Jnana Yoga by one whose mind has its blemishes washed away by Karma Yoga. Again, in the third and fourth chapters, you have praised Karma Yoga or devotion to Karma as better than Jnana Yoga even for one who has attained the stage of Jnana Yoga, and that, as a means of attaining the self, it (Karma Yoga) is independent of Jnana Yoga. Therefore, of these two, Jnana Yoga and Karma Yoga - tell me precisely which by itself is superior, i.e., most excellent, being more easy to practise, and icker to confer the vision of the self.