Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Shloka (Verse) 4

व्याख्या--'सांख्ययोगौ पृथग्बालाः प्रवदन्ति न पण्डिताः'--इसी अध्यायके पहले श्लोकमें अर्जुनने कर्मोंका स्वरूपसे त्याग करके तत्त्वदर्शी महापुरुषके पास जाकर ज्ञान प्राप्त करनेके साधनको 'कर्मसंन्यास' नामसे कहा है। भगवान्ने भी दूसरे श्लोकमें अपने सिद्धान्तकी मुख्यता रखते हुए उसे 'संन्यास' और 'कर्मसंन्यास' नामसे कहा है। अब उस साधनको भगवान् यहाँ 'सांख्य' नामसे कहते हैं। भगवान् शरीर-शरीरीके भेदविचार करके स्वरूपमें स्थित होनेको 'सांख्य' कहते हैं। भगवान्के मतमें 'संन्यास' और 'सांख्य' पर्यायवाची हैं, जिसमें कर्मोंका स्वरूपसे त्याग करनेकी आवश्यकता नहीं है।अर्जुन जिसे 'कर्मसंन्यास' नामसे कह रहे हैं, वह भी निःसन्देह भगवान्के द्वारा कहे 'सांख्य' का ही एक अवान्तर भेद है। कारण कि गुरुसे सुनकर भी साधक शरीर-शरीरीके भेदका ही विचार करता है।'बालाः' पदसे भगवान् यह कहते हैं कि आयु और बुद्धिमें बड़े होकर भी जो सांख्ययोग और कर्मयोगको अलग-अलग फलवाले मानते हैं, वे बालक अर्थात् बेसमझ ही हैं।जिन महापुरुषोंने सांख्ययोग और कर्मयोगके तत्त्वको ठीक-ठीक समझा है, वे ही पण्डित अर्थात् बुद्धिमान् हैं। वे लोग दोनोंको अलग-अलग फलवाले नहीं कहते; क्योंकि वे दोनों साधनोंकी प्रणालियोंको न देखकर उन दोनोंके वास्तविक परिणामको देखते हैं.साधन-प्रणालीको देखते हुए स्वयं भगवान्ने तीसरे अध्यायके तीसरे श्लोकमें सांख्ययोग और कर्मयोगको दो प्रकारका साधन स्वीकार किया है। दोनोंकी साधन-प्रणाली तो अलग-अलग है, पर साध्य अलग-अलग नहीं है।

भिन्न पुरुषोंद्वारा अनुष्ठान करनेयोग्य परस्परविरुद्ध कर्मसंन्यास और कर्मयोगके फलमें भी विरोध होना चाहिये दोनोंका कल्याणरूप एक ही फल कहना ठीक नहीं इस शङ्काके प्राप्त होनेपर यह कहा जाता है बालबुद्धिवाले ही सांख्य और योगइन दोनोंको अलगअलग विरुद्ध फलदायक बतलाते हैं पण्डित नहीं। ज्ञानी पण्डितजन तो दोनोंका अविरुद्ध और एक ही फल मानते हैं। क्योंकि सांख्य और योगइन दोनोंमेंसे एकका भी भलीभाँति अनुष्ठान कर लेनेवाला पुरुष दोनोंका फल पा लेता है। कारण दोनोंका वही ( एक ) कल्याणरूप ( परमपद ) फल है इसलिये फलमें विरोध नहीं है। पू0 संन्यास और कर्मयोग इन शब्दोंसे प्रकरण उठाकर फिर यहाँ प्रकरणविरुद्ध सांख्य और योगके फलकी एकता कैसे कहते हैं उ0 यह दोष नहीं है। यद्यपि अर्जुनने केवल संन्यास और कर्मयोगको पूछनेके अभिप्रायसे ही प्रश्न कियाथा परंतु भगवान्ने उसके अभिप्रायको न छोड़कर ही अपना विशेष अभिप्राय जोड़ते हुए सांख्य और योग ऐसे इन दूसरे शब्दोंसे उनका वर्णन करके उत्तर दिया है। क्योंकि वे संन्यास और कर्मयोग ही ( क्रमानुसार ) ज्ञानसे और उसके उपायरूप समबुद्धि आदि भावोंसे युक्त हो जानेपर सांख्य और योगके नामसे कहे जाते हैं यह भगवान्का मत है अतः यह वर्णन प्रकरणविरुद्ध नहीं है।

He objects to what was stated regarding Sannyasa and Karma Yoga leading to the highest good—with "Sannyasa" etc. There, as a reply, he introduces the next verse with "Iti prapte" (This objection arising...). "Then how do the discriminative ones speak?"—anticipating this, He says "Ekam" (One...) etc.

"Sankhya" (Knowledge) is fit for "Atma-samiksha" (investigation of the Self), therefore "Sankhya" means Sannyasa; and "Yoga" means Karma Yoga; even both of those are distinct—he states the meaning of this with "Viruddha" (Contradictory...). "Balatvam" (Childishness) is the voidness of discrimination regarding the meaning of the scriptures.

He creates a preamble to introduce the second half (of the verse) with "Panditastu" (But the wise...) etc. "Knowers and Yogis"—this is the remainder (implied meaning). He reveals the very non-contradiction of the fruits of both, preceded by a question—with "Katham" (How...) etc.

"That one performing a single means attains the fruit of both is contradictory"—anticipating this doubt, he says "Ubhayoh" (Of both...) etc. The meaning is that since Sankhya and Yoga—i.e., Sannyasa and performance of Action—have the highest good as their fruit through the door of Knowledge of Reality, there is no suspicion of them having contradictory fruits.

(Objection): "The statement that Sankhya and Yoga have one (same) fruit does not fit the context (Prakarana)"—he doubts with "Nanu" (But...). He refutes that the "irrelevance" is unproven—with "Naisha doshah" (This is not a fault...).

Since in the question (5.1) Sannyasa and Karma Yoga were accepted, and in the reply (5.2) "Sannyasa and Karma Yoga..." they were accepted in the same way, how is it said that the single-fruit-ness of Sankhya and Yoga is not irrelevant? To that he says "Yadyapi" (Although...). "Even the reply was described by the Lord in accordance with that, so there is no logic for a distinction"—anticipating this, he says "Bhagavan tu" (But the Lord...).

In the phrase "Tad-aparityagena" (Without abandoning that...), by the word "Tad" (That), the Karma-Sannyasa and Karma-Yoga indicated by the questioner are expressed. The construction is that without abandoning those very Sannyasa and Karma Yoga—which are expressible by the other words 'Sankhya and Yoga'—and by conjoining the 'distinction' intended by Himself, the Lord gave the reply. He clarifies what was said as "and by conjoining the distinction intended by Himself"—with "Taveva" (Those very...) etc. By the word "Samabuddhitva-adi" (Evenness of mind etc.), the means to knowledge such as Shama (quiescence) etc. are accepted. On the acceptance of the very Sannyasa and Karma Yoga under discussion, he states the result with "Atah" (Therefore...). The meaning of the word "Iti" is the completion of the explanation of the verse "Sankhyayogau" etc.

(Objection): "It is not logical that both lead to the highest good, i.e., have the same fruit; because things that are to be performed by different persons and are contradictory in nature, ought to be contradictory in fruit as well. Therefore, tell me that one of the two which leads to the highest good"—noticing this doubt of Arjuna, He says "Sankhya" etc.

However, the view that—"Since in one there is fear of fall and in one there is the toil of action, 'Which of these two paths is better?'—doubting this, He stated the equality of both in terms of result"—that is questionable. Because for one who considers both as not superior (due to faults), the question "Which is superior?" is inappropriate.

"Sankhya" is the correct intellect/understanding of the Self; he who carries that is "Sankhya"—i.e., Sannyasa, because it is the internal/proximate means to Knowledge. Thus, Sannyasa, which is conjoined with Shama (quiescence), Dama (self-control) etc. and Knowledge, is expressible here by the word 'Sankhya' and is intended and under discussion. Similarly, the 'Karma Yoga' under discussion, which is conjoined with the means to knowledge and evenness of mind etc., is expressible by the word 'Yoga'. "Those very Sannyasa and Karma Yoga, conjoined with Knowledge and its means like evenness of mind, are expressible by the words Sankhya and Yoga"—this is from the Bhashya. By this, the view—"The word Sankhya, which denotes establishment in Knowledge (Jnana-Nishtha), implies its subsidiary Sannyasa through indication (Lakshana)"—is refuted.

"Balah"—meaning the undiscriminating (ignorant)—speak of them as distinct, i.e., having different fruits; but not the "Panditah"—the discriminating knowers of scripture. They (the Pandits) say that "One who is 'Asthitah'—who has performed/resorted to—even one, Karma Yoga or Sannyasa, which is the producer of proper purification of mind and is endowed with Shama, Dama etc., obtains the fruit of both, the highest good (Moksha), either sequentially or directly." This is the meaning.

As for the view (of Yaska/others): "Sam" means Oneness (Ekibhava)—says Yaska; that by which the nature of the Reality is declared (khyayate) through oneness—i.e., non-difference from the Self—is 'Sankhya'; 'Sankhya' is the Sannyasa which is the means to that mental modification (Chitta-vritti) which arises from dissolving the gross, subtle, and causal universe into the indeterminate Innermost Self; and that is the 'Nyasana'—abandonment/dissolution—of objects starting from wife etc. up to the intellect, into the Self through oneness. And 'Yoga' is the performance starting from Agnihotra, Sandhya-worship etc. up to indeterminate Samadhi (Nirvikalpa Samadhi); there, the definition of the main Yoga is 'Yoga is the restraint of mental modifications'. And modifications are five: 'Right knowledge, error, imagination, sleep, and memory'."—

(The doubt is:) Are these the fruit-state Sankhya and Yoga, or the means-state named Sannyasa and Karma Yoga? The equality of the latter (means) was indicated by "He is to be known as a constant Sannyasi" (5.3); the unity of the former (fruits) is being spoken of here. "Asthitah—performing; Phalam—he attains the result which is the state of abiding as the Indeterminate Self"—thus others explain. That should be disregarded as it does not accord with Arjuna's question. For he asked, "What is better between Sannyasa and Karma Yoga?" Therefore, the commentators (Shankara etc.) have displayed the meaning of the word 'Yoga' in various places as 'Karma Yoga' alone. By this, the description of the 'fivefold nature of modifications' is also refuted as being irrelevant.

Sannyasa is indeed spoken of as being the 'internal' (proximate) means to Knowledge—in texts like "Not for the sake of grasping the Truth is his (external symbol)..." (Bhagavatam 5.11.3) etc.

"Therefore, how is that (Karma Yoga) such (equal/effective)?"—to this He says "Sankhyayogau" (Sankhya and Yoga...) etc. Because both are 'internal' means, there is no contradiction.

"Bewildered by fire, with vision covered by smoke, he does not recognize his own world (Self)";

"My path... which they have resorted to... (is different) from those of the path of smoke of the sacrificial hall"—such statements refer to desire-prompted actions (Kamya Karma)—this is the purport.

Those who speak 'otherwise' (claiming difference/contradiction) are "Balah" (children).

(Objection): "In one (Sannyasa) there is the fear of fall, and in the other (Yoga) there is the toil of action; so which of these two paths is better?"—anticipating this doubt, He states the equality of both in terms of result—with "Sankhyayogau" etc.

Yaska says: "'Sam' means Oneness (Ekibhava)." 'Sankhya' is that mental modification (Chitta-vritti) by which the nature of Reality is declared (khyayate) through oneness—i.e., through non-difference from the Self. That (modification) arises from dissolving (Pravilapana) the gross, subtle, and causal universe into the Indeterminate (Nirvikalpa) Innermost Self. 'Sankhya', which is the means to that, is Sannyasa. And that (Sannyasa) is the 'Nyasana'—abandonment or dissolution—of objects starting from wife etc. up to the intellect, into the Self through oneness. Similarly, 'Yoga' is the performance starting from Agnihotra, Sandhya-worship etc. up to Indeterminate Samadhi. There, the definition of the main Yoga is: "Yoga is the restraint of mental modifications" (Patanjali Yoga Sutra 1.2).

And the modifications are five: "Right knowledge (Pramana), Error (Viparyaya), Imagination/Conceptualization (Vikalpa), Sleep (Nidra), and Memory (Smriti)." Among them, Direct perception, Inference, and Scripture are Pramanas; of these, direct perception is born of the senses; the modification born of that which gives accurate knowledge of objects like a shell etc. 'Viparyaya' (Error) is the delusive knowledge regarding that very object (shell) as silver etc. Even 'Doubt'—such as "Is this a shell or silver?"—is knowledge where one side is undetermined; and that is included within Viparyaya alone. 'Vikalpa' (Imagination) follows verbal knowledge and is devoid of any real object; such as "The consciousness of the Purusha" or "The son of a barren woman." For there is no separateness between Purusha, Consciousness, and their relation, but Consciousness alone is spoken of by the three words (hence the distinction is verbal). Nor does the nature of a 'barren woman's son' exist, yet it is uttered by words. This is that 'Vikalpa'—following verbal knowledge, devoid of object; the idea of many in one, and the idea of existence in what does not exist. Sleep and Memory are well-known in the world. Even upon the restraint of these (modifications), the Indeterminate Innermost Self alone remains.

These are the 'fruit-state' Sankhya and Yoga. The 'means-state' are those very things named Sannyasa and Karma Yoga. The equality of the latter (means) was indicated by "He is to be known as a constant Sannyasi" (5.3). The unity of the former (fruits) is being spoken of here. "Asthitah"—performing/practicing. "Phalam"—(attains) the result which is the state of abiding as the Indeterminate Self.

Those who declare that Jnana Yoga and Karma Yoga are distinct due to difference in fruit are "Balah" (children/ignorant), "Anishpanna-jnanah" (those whose knowledge is not perfected); "Na panditah" (not wise), nor "Kritsna-vidah" (knowers of all). Karma Yoga accomplishes Jnana Yoga alone; and Jnana Yoga accomplishes the one Self-vision; thus those who speak of their distinctness due to difference in fruit are not wise; this is the meaning.

Since both have the single fruit of Self-vision, due to having one fruit, one established even in one obtains that very fruit.

He explains this very point—

Since in this way, due to the relationship of subsidiary (Anga) and principal (Pradhana), there is a 'sequential combination' (Krama-samuccaya) of both based on the difference in stages; therefore, accepting them as 'options' (Vikalpa) and asking "Which of the two is superior?" is appropriate only for the ignorant, not for the discriminating—He says this with "Sankhyayogau" etc.

By the word 'Sankhya', which denotes establishment in Knowledge, He implies its subsidiary, 'Sannyasa'. "Sannyasa and Karma Yoga, though having the same fruit, are distinct and independent"—so speak "Balah", i.e., the ignorant alone, not the wise (Panditas).

The reason there is: being "Samyag asthitah"—well established/resorted to—in even one of these, he obtains the fruit of both. To explain: One performing Karma Yoga well, becoming pure-minded, attains through Knowledge the fruit of both, which is 'Kaivalya' (Liberation). Even one well-established in Sannyasa attains—through the sequence of Karma Yoga performed previously and then through Knowledge—that fruit of both which is Kaivalya. Thus, they do not have separate fruits—this is the meaning.

He explains the intended meaning of "Both lead to the highest good" (5.2)—with this intent (Ramanuja) said "Jnanayoga-karmayogayoh" (Of Knowledge Yoga and Karma Yoga...).

Here, the words 'Sankhya' and 'Yoga' do not refer to the systems of Kapila and Hiranyagarbha; because they are irrelevant (to the context); they are inconsistent with the grand context (Maha-prakarana); and due to contradiction with earlier and later verses like "But of the two, Karma Yoga is superior" (5.2) and "But Renunciation... is hard to attain without Yoga" (5.6). Also, because those two systems have been refuted by the Great Sage (Vyasa) himself in the Brahma Sutras with aphorisms like "And because of the illogicality of construction, no inference..." (2.2.1) and "By this, Yoga is refuted" (2.1.3); and in the Mokshadharma (Mahabharata 12.350.27) their contradictory parts are mentioned: "Many men, O King, discuss Sankhya and Yoga in the world; they do not desire One Purusha (God), O Descendant of Kuru... but Vyasa has spoken of their unity (in the One Purusha) briefly."

Therefore, 'Sankhya' is the Reality of the Self to be ascertained by 'Sankhya' (Intellect); or it is the 'Sankhya' in the form of ascertainment of that. And 'Yoga' here is Karma Yoga. With this intent, the words 'Knowledge Yoga' and 'Karma Yoga' are adopted (in the Bhashya).

"Prithag balah pravadanti" (Children speak of them as distinct)—by this, the distinctness of their essential nature is not being denied, for that is valid (they are different). Nor is this intended to enjoin their combination (Samuccaya); because separate performance is established by "Established well in even one, he obtains the fruit of both," "The state reached by the Sankhyas is also reached by the Yogis" (5.5), and "Renunciation... is hard to attain without Yoga" (5.6). Therefore, since the unity of fruit is enjoined by "Established in even one...", the purport here is in the denial of the difference created by 'difference in fruit'—(Ramanuja) says this with "Phalabhedat prithagbhutau" (Distinct due to difference in fruit...).

Since this sentence is in the form of condemnation of those who argue for separate fruits, the sentence structure is shown by making "Balatvam" (childishness) the predicate of "Those who speak thus." Similarly, in the next verse, in praise of those who argue for single-fruit-ness, "He who sees" is restated and "He sees" (5.5) is enjoined. Since the primary meaning of the word 'Bala' (Child) is inappropriate here, he gives the figurative meaning—"Anishpanna-jnanah" (Those whose knowledge is not accomplished). "Balah"—because of the usage of the synonym 'unripe' for unripe logical knowledge (like children), or due to similarity with children. "Na panditah" (Not the wise)—here, to exclude ignorance extending up to unscriptural performance, he said "Akritsnavidah" (Those who do not know fully). 'Panditya' (Wisdom) here is the knowledge whose subject is the Meaning accessible only through the grace of a true teacher, well-known in texts like "Therefore a Brahmana, having transcended scholarship..." (Brihadaranyaka 3.5.1). Therefore, the purport is that even after saying "Children," stating the absence of that (Wisdom) is not a repetition.

He shows the manner of delusion regarding the difference of fruit etc., and that "Na panditah" is also a subject of the injunction (via negation) like "Balah"—with "Karmayogah" (Karma Yoga...) etc. "Jnanayogameva" (Knowledge Yoga alone...)—means (Karma Yoga leads to Knowledge Yoga), not that for any qualified person there is direct perception of the Self (solely by Karma). Even for those who interpret the sentence structure as "Those who are children speak thus, those who are wise do not"—they too must accept this very meaning in result.

How is the fruit of both obtained by one?—to this he says "Ubhayoh" (Of both...). The genitive case is for determination (Nirdharana). And the word 'Eka' (One) is a synonym for 'Anyatara' (Either). The meaning is: since both have equal fruit, by resorting to 'either', that fruit is accomplished.

किसी भी सामान्य कर्म को ईश्वर का पूजा में परिवर्तित करने के दो उपाय हैं। एक है सभी कर्मों में कर्तृत्व के अभिमान का त्याग और दूसरा है फलासक्ति के कारण उत्पन्न होने वाली चिंताओं का त्याग जिसे दूसरे शब्दों में कहेंगे भोक्तृत्व के अभिमान का त्याग। प्रथम उपाय को कहते हैं सांख्य तथा दूसरे को योग।सांख्य मार्ग का अनुसरण सबके लिए संभव नहीं होता है। अत्यन्त मेधावी पुरुष ही संपूर्ण विश्व में हो रहे कर्मों का अवलोकन कर इस कर्तृत्त्व के अभिमान को त्याग सकता है। जीवन में प्राप्त उपलब्धियों के लिए जगत् में कितने ही व्यक्तियों एवं नियमों की अपेक्षा होती है। इसे समझ कर ही हम अपने व्यक्तिगत योगदान की क्षुद्रता समझ सकते हैं और तभी हम अपने मिथ्या कर्तृत्त्व की धारणा को भी त्याग सकते हैं।केवल बालक अर्थात् अपरिपक्व विचार के लोग ही सांख्य और योग में विरोध देखते हैं जबकि बुद्धिमान पुरुष जो किसी एक मार्ग का अवलंबन दृढ़ता से करते हैं दोनों मार्गों के समान प्रभाव को जानते हैं। यदि साधक के रूप में हम कर्तृत्व अभिमान अथवा फलासक्ति को त्यागते हैं तो हमें एक ही लक्ष्य प्राप्त होता है।एक के ही सम्यक ् अनुष्ठान से दोनों के फल की प्राप्ति कैसे होगी उत्तर में कहते हैं

"Sankhyayogau" etc. "That which is reached by the Sankhyas..." (5.5). There is no difference such as "This is Sankhya" and "This is Yoga."

For these two are 'eternally connected'. Knowledge does not exist without Yoga, nor Yoga without that (Knowledge).

Therefore, there is unity of these two.

Since the resolution has already been given—in response to the question regarding the betterness of the two, asked with the intention "I will accept Renunciation and abandon Yoga"—that "Both lead to the highest good, and even there Yoga is superior to Renunciation, therefore war should not be abandoned by you"; for what purpose is "Sankhya and Yoga" being spoken of now?—to this (Madhavacharya) says "Sannyaso hi" (Renunciation indeed...). The word "Hi" is used in the sense of a reason. Because (Sannyasa) is an internal/proximate means to knowledge, it is absolutely essential in the production of knowledge.

In "Not for the sake of that (grasping the Truth)..." (Bhagavatam 5.11.3), by the statement of the non-arising of knowledge in the absence of dispassion for objects, it is obtained that from that (dispassion/renunciation) alone is the arising of that (knowledge). Similarly, "Karma Yoga was stated to be opposed to knowledge" (by the opponent). The statement "Bewildered by fire..." etc. should also be grasped here. "Avamah" (Inferior) compared to Yoga. By this, the quality of Yoga leading to the highest good was also objected to.

(Objection): "Sankhya is Knowledge and Yoga is Action; how is the absence of distinctness between them being spoken of here? And how is the stated objection resolved by this?" To this he says "Ubhayorapi" (Of both also...). Not only of Sannyasa but also of Yoga—thus, because 'both' are internal/proximate means to knowledge, the stated contradiction does not exist—this is the meaning. By this, it is explained that "The Pandits (wise) do not think that Sankhya and Yoga are distinct, i.e., devoid of the relationship of end and means."

(Objection): "It was said that Karma is stated to be opposed to Knowledge by Shruti and Puranas; therefore, how is this (non-contradiction) being asserted?" To this he says "Agni" (Fire...) etc.

"Mughdah" (Bewildered)—deluded thinking that action symbolized by 'Agni' (Fire) is the producer of the highest good. "Dhumatantah"—faint/exhausted by the smoke of the sacrifice; or "Dhumata"—having smoke etc. alone as its end or culmination. "Svam Lokam"—his own refuge, the Supreme Self (he does not recognize). "Yajnashala..." (by the sacrificial hall)—meaning, "Your paths, belonging to those symbolized by the path of smoke, are not resorted to by us."

(Objection): "Even desireless Nitya and Naimittika action is only for the removal of sin (Pratyavaya), and is not an internal means to Knowledge—so indeed the learned think?" To this he says "Ye tu" (But those who...). "Balah" means the undiscriminating (ignorant).

(Objection): "How is he who is engaged in action to be known as a Sannyasi? Because action and its abandonment are contradictory in nature. If you say it is so because of the 'unity of fruit', that is not correct; because for things that are contradictory in nature, it is appropriate that there be contradiction in fruit as well. And thus, 'Both lead to the highest good' is illogical"—anticipating this doubt, He says

"Sankhya" is the correct understanding of the Self; he who carries that—since it is the internal means to knowledge—is "Sankhya", i.e., Sannyasa. "Yoga" is the previously mentioned Karma Yoga. "Balah"—meaning those devoid of discrimination regarding the knowledge of the meaning of scriptures—speak of them as "Distinct", i.e., having contradictory fruits; not the "Panditas" (Wise).

What then is the opinion of the Wise? It is stated—"Ekam api" (Even one...). Being well-established in "even one" between Sannyasa and Action—performing it well according to scripture in accordance with one's qualification—he attains the fruit of "both", which is the single "Highest Good" (Liberation) through the generation of knowledge.

Those who possess the notion of "rejectable and acceptable" regarding both (Sankhya and Yoga), and who possess the notion that they are distinct from My nature, are fools—He says this with "Sankhyayogau" etc. "Sankhya and Yoga are distinct"—meaning, due to difference, one is to be performed and the other is not to be performed—so speak "Balah", i.e., fools; not the "Panditas", i.e., the Knowers. This is the meaning.

This is the purport: Sankhya and Yoga are like My "Kundalas" (earrings/ornaments). Regarding them, the notion of "rejectable and acceptable" (is wrong) because My earrings are of My very nature (identical to Me); and the "knowledge of difference" is also indeed "ignorance"—this is the purport.

Since such knowledge is ignorance, therefore one "well-established"—devoted to My nature, performing by My command—attains the "one fruit" of both, which is in the form of My "Grace" (Prasada).

"Sankhya and Yoga are distinct"—having contradictory and different fruits—so speak "Balah" (Children), not the Pandits. The Pandits (Wise) accept one non-contradictory fruit.

How? "Ekam api"—Established well in even one of Sankhya and Yoga—meaning having practiced well; he attains the fruit "of both". For the fruit of both is that very same Highest Good; therefore, there is no contradiction in the fruit.

(Objection): "Having introduced the topic with the words 'Sannyasa' and 'Karma Yoga', how does He speak here of the unity of fruit of 'Sankhya and Yoga', which is out of context (Aprakrita)?" (Solution): This is not a fault.

Although the question was asked by Arjuna intending 'Sannyasa' and 'Karma Yoga' merely (in a general sense); the Lord, however, without abandoning that, but conjoining the 'distinction' intended by Himself, gave the reply using words expressible by other terms—"Sankhya and Yoga." Those very Sannyasa and Karma Yoga, when conjoined with Knowledge and the means to it such as 'evenness of mind' etc., become expressible by the words 'Sankhya' and 'Yoga'—this is the Lord's opinion. Therefore, this is not an out-of-context procedure.

How one attains the fruit of both by the proper performance of even one—is stated (in the next verse).

Since Sankhya and Yoga differ in their scriptures, how can they produce the very same meaning/goal?"—anticipating this doubt, He teaches their non-difference and principal oneness of purpose on the basis of their having a single fruit as their object—with "Sankhya" etc.

Although there is a difference—in Sankhya there is renunciation of actions, and in Yoga there is acceptance (performance) of them—still, by being established in "Ekam Artham" (the one meaning/path), which is the performance of one's own duty preceded by the renunciation of dualities (Dvandva), one attains the fruit of both.

Or (alternatively): "Established well in even one among the two, he attains the fruit"—thus, when considered independently, both are stated to be accomplishers of the supreme goal of human life.

However, the Lord's opinion is that it is so (effective) when adopted with a sense of "oneness of purpose" (Aikarthya). This will become clear later.

सांख्ययोगौ Sankhya (knowledge) and Yoga (Yoga of action or performance of action)? पृथक् distinct? बालाः children? प्रवदन्ति speak? न not? पण्डिताः the wise? एकम् one? अपि even? आस्थितः established in? सम्यक् truly? उभयोः of both? विन्दते obtains? फलम् fruit.Commentary Children the ignorant people who have no knowledge of the Self? and who have only a theoretical knowledge of the scriptures.Children or ignorant people only say that knowledge and the performance of action are different and produce distinct and opposite results. But the wise who have the knowledge of the Self say that they produce the same result only? viz.? Moksha or liberation. He who is duly established in,one? he who truly lives in one? Sankhya or Yoga? obtains the fruits of both. Therefore there is no diversity in the result or the fruit. This is the gist of this verse. (Cf.VI.2)

Balah, the fools; na panditah, not the learned ones; pravadanti, speak of; sankhya-yogau, Sankhya [Sankhya, i.e. monasticism, is that which is suited for sankhya, Self-iniry.] (the Path of Knowledge) and (Karma-)yoga; as prthak, different, having opposite and different results. The learned ones, the wise, however, admit one, unconflicting result. How? Any one who samyak, properly; asthitah, resorts to, i.e. follows; ekam api, even one, between the Path of Knowledge and (Karma-) yoga; vindate, gets; phalam, the result; ubhayoh, of both. For, the result of both is that Liberation itself. Therefore there is no conflict with regard to the result.
Objection: After beginning the topic with the words, 'renunciation' and '(Karma-) yoga', how is it that the Lord speaks of the identity of the results of the path of Knowledge and (Karma-) yoga, which is beside the point?
Reply: This defect does not arise. Although the estion was put by Arjuna merely with regard to renunciation and Karma-yoga, yet the Lord, without actually avoiding them, and by adding something special which was intended by Him, gave the answer by expressing them through other words, 'Sankhya' and '(Karma-) yoga'. Those very 'renunciation and 'Karma-yoga', when they are (respectively) associated with Knowledge and such of Its means as eanimity etc., are meant by the words 'Sankhya' and 'yoga'. This is the Lord's veiw. Therefore there is no discussion out of the context.
How can the result of both be attained by the proper performance of only one? The answer is:

Those who say that Karma Yoga and Jnana Yoga are distinct because of the difference in results, are children, i.e., are persons with incomplete knowledge; they do not know the entire truth. The meaning is that they do not possess true knowledge, who say that Karma Yoga results in Jnana Yoga only and that Jnana Yoga alone results in the vision of the self and that the two are thus distinct because of the difference in their fruits. But on the contrary as both have only the vision of the self as the fruit, a person who is firmly set in one of them, wins that one fruit common to both.
Sri Krsna further expounds the same: