Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Shloka (Verse) 5

व्याख्या--'यत्सांख्यैः प्राप्यते स्थानं तद्योगैरपि गम्यते'--पूर्वश्लोकके उत्तरार्धमें भगवान्ने कहा था कि एक साधनमें भी अच्छी तरहसे स्थित होकर मनुष्य दोनों साधनोंके फलरूप परमात्मतत्त्वको प्राप्त कर लेता है। उसी बातकी पुष्टि भगवान् उपर्युक्त पदोंमें दूसरे ढंगसे कर रहे हैं कि जो तत्त्व सांख्ययोगी प्राप्तकरते हैं, वही तत्त्व कर्मयोगी भी प्राप्त करते हैं।संसारमें जो यह मान्यता है कि कर्मयोगसे कल्याण नहीं होता, कल्याण तो ज्ञानयोगसे ही होता है--इस मान्यताको दूर करनेके लिये यहाँ 'अपि' अव्ययका प्रयोग किया गया है।
सांख्ययोगी और कर्मयोगी--दोनोंका ही अन्तमें कर्मोंसे अर्थात् क्रियाशील प्रकृतिसे सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद होता है। प्रकृतिसे सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद होनेपर दोनों ही योग एक हो जाते हैं। साधन-कालमें भी सांख्ययोगका विवेक (जड़-चेतनका सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद) कर्मयोगीको अपनाना पड़ता है और कर्मयोगकी प्रणाली (अपने लिये कर्म न करनेकी पद्धति) सांख्ययोगीको अपनानी पड़ती है। सांख्ययोगका विवेक प्रकृति-पुरुषका सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद करनेके लिये होता है और कर्मयोगका कर्म संसारकी सेवाके लिये होता है। सिद्ध होनेपर सांख्ययोगी और कर्मयोगी--दोनोंकी एक स्थिति होती है क्योंकि दोनों ही साधकोंकी अपनी निष्ठाएँ हैं (गीता 3। 3)।संसार विषम है। घनिष्ठ-से-घनिष्ठ सांसारिक सम्बन्धमें भी विषमता रहती है। परन्तु परमात्मा सम हैं। अतः समरूप परमात्माकी प्राप्ति संसारसे सर्वथा सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद होनेपर ही होती है। संसारसे सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद करनेके लिये दो योगमार्ग हैं--ज्ञानयोग और कर्मयोग। मेरे सत्-स्वरूपमें कभी अभाव नहीं होता, जबकि कामना-आसक्ति अभावमें ही पैदा होती है--ऐसा समझकर असङ्ग हो जाय--यह ज्ञानयोग है। जिन वस्तुओंमें साधकका राग है, उन वस्तुओंको दूसरोंकी सेवामें खर्च कर दे और जिन व्यक्तियोंमें राग है, उनकी निःस्वार्थभावसे सेवा कर दे--यह कर्मयोग है। इस प्रकार ज्ञानयोगमें विवेक-विचारके द्वारा और कर्मयोगमें सेवाके द्वारा संसारसे सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद हो जाता है।'एकं सांख्यं च योगं च यः पश्यति स पश्यति'--पूर्वश्लोकके पूर्वार्धमें भगवान्ने व्यतिरेक रीतिसे कहा था कि सांख्ययोग और कर्मयोगको बेसमझ लोग ही अलग-अलग फल देनेवाले कहते हैं। उसी बातको अब अन्वय रीतिसे कहते हैं कि जो मनुष्य इन दोनों साधनोंको फल-दृष्टिसे एक देखता है, वही यथार्थरूपमें देखता है।इस प्रकार चौथे और पाँचवें श्लोकका सार यह है कि भगवान् सांख्ययोग और कर्मयोग--दोनोंको स्वतन्त्र साधन मानते हैं और दोनोंका फल एक ही परमात्मतत्त्वकी प्राप्ति मानते हैं। इस वास्तविकताको न जाननेवाले मनुष्यको भगवान् बेसमझ कहते हैं और इस जाननेवालेको भगवान् यथार्थ जाननेवाला (बुद्धिमान्) कहते हैं।

एकका भी भली प्रकार अनुष्ठान कर लेनेसे दोनोंका फल कैसे पा लेता है इसपर कहा जाता है सांख्योगियोंद्वारा अर्थात् ज्ञाननिष्ठायुक्त संन्यासियोंद्वारा जो मोक्ष नामक स्थान प्राप्त किया जाता है वही कर्मयोगियोंद्वारा भी ( प्राप्त किया जाता है )। जो पुरुष अपने लिये ( कर्मोंका ) फल न चाहकर सब कर्म ईश्वरमें अर्पण करके और उसे ज्ञानप्राप्तिका उपाय मानकर उनका अनुष्ठान करते हैं वे योगी हैं उनको भी परमार्थज्ञानरूप संन्यासप्राप्तिके द्वारा ( वही मोक्षरूप फल ) मिलता है। यह अभिप्राय है। इसलिये फलमें एकता होनेके कारण जो सांख्य और योगको एक देखता है वही यथार्थ देखता है। पू0 यदि ऐसा है तब तो कर्मयोगसे कर्मसंन्यास ही श्रेष्ठ है फिर यह कैसे कहा कि उन दोनोंमें कर्मसंन्यासकी अपेक्षा कर्मयोग श्रेष्ठ है उ0 उसमें जो कारण है सो सुनो तुमने केवल कर्मसंन्यास और केवल कर्मयोगके अभिप्रायसे पूछा था कि उन दोनोंमें कौनसा एक कल्याणकारक है उसीके अनुरूप मैंने यह उत्तर दिया कि ज्ञानरहित कर्मसंन्यासकी अपेक्षा तो कर्मयोग ही श्रेष्ठ है। क्योंकि ज्ञानसहित संन्यासको तो मैं सांख्य मानता हूँ और वही परमार्थयोग भी है।

Preceded by the question (from the previous commentary commentary), He introduces the next verse with "Ekasyapi" (By the proper performance of even one...).

Anticipating the doubt that "Only some people see that they have one fruit," He states that they alone are the ones who see correctly, not the others—with "Ekam" (One...) etc.

Relying on the etymological derivation "That in which one stands and does not fall again," He says "Mokshakhyam" (The place named Liberation).

He states the meaning of the word 'Yoga' with "Jnanaprapti" (Attainment of knowledge...) etc.

Those seekers who perform all actions for the sake of the Lord's pleasure, without desiring their fruits, as a means to the attainment of knowledge through the purification of the intellect—they are intended here by the word "Yogah". By accepting the suffix 'ach' in the sense of 'matup' (possession), it is stated as "Yoginah" (Yogis).

"The entire dualistic universe is not substantial (real) because it is a play of Maya, whereas the Self is changeless, non-dual, and substantially Real"—this 'instigating knowledge' is the Supreme Knowledge (Paramartha-jnana); through Sannyasa preceded by that (knowledge), 'that very place' is attainable even by the performers of action (karmis); thus, the 'singleness of fruit' of Sannyasa and Karma Yoga is not contradictory—He says this with "Tairapi" (By them also...).

Upon the unity of the fruit, he states the resultant conclusion with "Atah" (Therefore...).

"How do they attain the fruit of both by the proper performance of even one?"—to this He says "Yat" (That which...) etc. "Sankhyaih"—meaning by those established in knowledge, by Sannyasis with purified minds; the "Place" (Sthana) named Liberation—which is devoid of fall/return—that is attained; it is "attained" merely by the direct realization of Truth—meaning, it is the 'attainment of the already attained', like the gaining of a forgotten necklace (Graiveyaka).

"Tad Yogaih"—(Here 'Yogaih' refers to) the scriptural actions which are the means to the attainment of knowledge, performed for the worship of God, devoid of desire for fruit, and are expressible by the word 'Yoga'; "Tadvadbhih"—by those who possess those actions (i.e., by the Yogis, that place is attained). Due to belonging to the 'Arsha-adi' group, the suffix 'ach' is used in the sense of possession (matvarthiya). "That very place"—meaning Supreme Knowledge—is reached, i.e., attained, (by them) through the door of attaining Sannyasa. Like the maxim "Ghee is life" (Ayurghritam), with the intention of the non-difference between the means and the end; since Supreme Knowledge is non-different from Liberation, and Liberation is non-different from that (Knowledge), it is stated thus ("One"), so there is no contradiction.

By this—(the following objection is addressed): "Let the fruit named Liberation be one for both, but it is not logical that their means should be mutually dependent, just as distinct paths to a single destination village (are not dependent)"—anticipating this doubt, He speaks with "Yatsankhyaih..." etc. Here this option should be considered: "Do you assert the mutual independence of Sannyasa and Karma Yoga merely due to the difference in individuals, or due to the absence of another 'required' factor?" He says it is not the first. By the plural number in "Yat Sankhyaih"—meaning, just as the fruit is accomplished by 'Sannyasas' (renunciations) in the form of abandonment of various actions being mutually dependent (on other factors), similarly, it will be accomplished by the distinct Sannyasa and Karma Yoga being mutually dependent—this is the purport. He says it is not the last. "The Place which is attained"—here by the word 'Place' (Sthana), 'Liberating Knowledge' is spoken of—by this (interpretation of ours), that (objection) is refuted. Because mutual dependence was not propounded in the previous verse; and just as Liberation is from Knowledge alone—which is 'independent' and produced by Karma Yoga etc.—similarly, even if Sannyasa qualified by Shama, Dama etc. is produced by Action, there is an absence of the requirement of Action in the generation of Knowledge by that (Sannyasa); thus mutual dependence is not established. And (if dependence were true), instead of saying "Sankhya and Yoga are One," it would have been necessary to say "Sankhya and Yoga are mutually dependent" (which was not said).

Therefore, because they generate 'one fruit' either directly or indirectly, "He who sees Sankhya and Yoga as One, sees truly"—this meaning alone is delightful.

He states the intention of "Established in even one..." (5.4)—with "Yat sankhyaih" (That which is reached by the Sankhyas...) etc.

The meaning is that the 'Fruit of Knowledge' is attained even by the Yogis through Knowledge.

Yogaih means by Yogis. This word Yoga ends with the suffix 'ach' belonging to the 'Arsha-adi' group (a grammatical rule implying possession, i.e., one who possesses Yoga).

Sthanam means the place named Liberation. Ekam means non-different (one).

The construction of the two verses is clear.

Sankhyaih, i.e., by those established in Knowledge, whatever fruit in the form of the vision of the Self is attained, that very same is attained even by those established in Karma Yoga.

Thus, he who sees Sankhya and Yoga as Ekam (One)—i.e., optional (alternatives to each other)—because of having the same fruit, he sees; meaning he alone is wise.

There is this much distinction—He says (in the next verse).

He clarifies this very point with Yatsankhyaih etc. Sankhyaih means by the Sannyasis established in Knowledge; the Place named Liberation which is attained eminently and directly.

Regarding Yogaih—here the suffix 'ach' in the sense of possession (Matvarthiya) should be seen, due to belonging to the 'Arsha-adi' group. By that (it is meant), by the Karma Yogis also, that very same (place) is Gamyate—gone to—via the medium of Knowledge; meaning, it is attained.

Therefore, he who sees Sankhya and Yoga as One because of having a single fruit, he alone sees correctly.

Criticism was made of those who assert distinctness based on distinct fruits; now, praise is being offered for those who assert oneness based on a single fruit—with this intent, (Ramanuja) said "Etadeva vivrinoti" (He explains this very point...).

Regarding "Sankhyaih"—to dispel the delusion that it refers to those established in the specific system (of Kapila), he said "Jnananishthaih" (By those established in Knowledge). 'Sankhya' is the scripture of Self-knowledge; those who know it are here 'Sankhyas'. Or, 'Sankhya' is Buddhi, i.e., Knowledge Yoga; those established in it are 'Sankhyas'. Or, 'Sankhya' is the Self; those who know It are also 'Sankhyas'.

The word "Sthana" (Place) here refers to the "Fruit" (Phala), just like in "Vindate phalam" (attains the fruit - 5.4), and not to a specific geographical location; because there is no specific place attainable solely by Knowledge Yoga etc. And that fruit is the "Vision of the Self" (Atma-avalokana) which continues from the preceding and succeeding context—with this intent, it was said "That fruit which is in the form of the vision of the Self." Here, the reading "Yadevam sankhyah pashyanti" stated by Yadavaprakasha is disregarded due to being obscure (unpopular).

Regarding "Yogaih"—to imply that it refers to those established in that (Yoga) either through indication (Lakshana) or due to a specific suffix (Pratyaya), it was said "Karmayoganishthaih" (By those established in Karma Yoga). The purport is that the words Sankhya and Yoga here do not refer to the 'means' (Upaya) themselves, because the plural number would be inappropriate.

Upon saying "Ekam" (One), to dispel the delusion of them having the 'same scriptural meaning' etc., he said "Evam ekaphalatvena" (Thus, by having a single fruit...). For, the 'unity' characterized by 'having a single fruit'—between two means that are devoid of subsidiary-principal relationship or mutual interdependence—can lead to an 'Option' (Vikalpa) in performance. And such is the Sutra: "There is option, on account of the non-distinction of fruit" (Brahma Sutra 3.3.59). He states that: "Vaikalpikam" (Optional/Alternative).

"Sa pashyati" (He sees)—this shows the counterpart to "Na panditah" (Not the wise - 5.4)—(saying) "Sa eva panditah" (He alone is wise).

यहाँ भगवान् का स्पष्ट वचन है कि सांख्य और योग दोनों का लक्ष्य एक ही है इसलिए एक के अनुष्ठान से दोनों के फल को प्राप्त होने की बात कही गयी है। इस प्रकार इन दोनों को फलरूप से एक समझने वाले पुरुष ही यथार्थ में वेदों में प्रतिपादित सत्य के ज्ञाता है।पश्यन्ति अर्थात् देखते हैं इस शब्द का प्रयोग उसके शास्त्रीय अर्थ में किया गया है जिसके कारण नेत्र इन्द्रिय के द्वारा किसी बाह्य वस्तु का दर्शन यहाँ अभिप्रेत नहीं हैं। अद्वैत तत्त्वज्ञान के सिद्धांतानुसार आत्मा के स्वयं द्रष्टा होने से उसका दृश्यरूप में दर्शन कभी नहीं हो सकता। द्रष्टा के द्वारा द्रष्टा का ही यह अनुभव है। देखते हैं शब्द का प्रयोग मात्र यह दर्शाने के लिए है कि इस आत्मतत्त्व का अनुभव उतना ही स्पष्ट और सन्देहरहित हो सकता है जितना कि बाह्य स्थूल पदार्थ का दर्शन।इस प्रकार इन दोनों के संश्लेषण करने का अर्थ यह नहीं है कि इनका मिश्रण किया गया हो। क्रम से योग तथा सांख्य का अनुष्ठान अपेक्षित है। इन दोनों को हम एक ही मान सकते हैं क्योंकि कर्मयोग से चित्तशुद्धि प्राप्त होकर सांख्य अर्थात् ध्यान के द्वारा हम परम तत्त्व का साक्षात् अनुभव कर सकते हैं। सभी साधकों को इस बात का ध्यान रखना चाहिये कि योग और सांख्य का अनुष्ठान क्रम से करना है न कि युगपत्।कर्मयोग का लक्ष्य संन्यास किस प्रकार है सुनो

(Referring to) "Sankhyayogau" etc. and "Yat sankhyaih" etc.

There is no distinction such as "This is Sankhya (Sankhya-knowledge)" and "This is Yoga." For these two are eternally connected.

Knowledge implies Yoga (it cannot exist without it), and Yoga also implies that (Knowledge). Therefore, there is unity of these two.

(Objection): "Only if Yoga is proven to be a means to Knowledge would this (unity of fruit) be true. But how is that (proven)?"—to this objection, it was stated (in the previous verse) "Ekam api" (Even one...). But that is illogical. In the construction "Established properly in even one of the two, he attains the fruit," only the fruitfulness of both is stated (not their causal link). And in the view "Established properly in even one, he attains the fruit of both," the two are stated to be independent means to some fruit. In either view, the contextual utility (of proving Yoga leads to Knowledge) is not served? (Solution): To this he says "Ekam api" etc. Even if it seems unuseful (logically), the Lord Himself stated the intent of His own words—meaning, "That is to be accepted."

"Even by this, what proof is stated regarding Yoga being a means to Knowledge?"—to this he explains "Yogibhirapi" (By Yogis also...). By texts like "The knower of the Self crosses sorrow" (Chandogya 7.1.3), the fruit of Knowledge named Moksha is established. That is said to be attained by Yogis as well, by texts like "We have drunk Soma (and become immortal)..." (Rig Veda 6.4.11).

Here it is to be investigated: Are both (Knowledge and Yoga) independent means to Liberation? Or combined? Or is one the direct means to Liberation and the other acts as a means to that? It is not the first or second option, because of the contradiction with texts like "There is no other path..." (Svetasvatara 6.15). In the third option, one must consider: which is the means to which? There, Knowledge cannot be the cause of Moksha by acting as a means to Action, because of the contradiction with "Without placing anything in between..." (implying direct cause). Therefore, by elimination (Parisesha), it is established that the 'fruit of Knowledge' is attained by Yogis through the medium of Knowledge. And thus, it is established that Yoga is a means to Knowledge—this is the meaning.

Here, by saying "Yogibhih" (by Yogis), it is indicated that the word "Yoga" (in the verse text 'Yogaih') is an indicator of the possessors of the quality (Dharmi), either because it is a word ending in 'ach' (Arsha-adi group) or (figuratively).

"How does one attain the fruit of both by the performance of one?"—to that He says: By "Sankhyas"—i.e., Sannyasis established in Knowledge—even if devoid of the performance of actions in this life, having minds purified by the very actions of previous lives, through establishment in Knowledge preceded by Hearing (Shravana) etc.—that well-known "Sthanam" (Place)—derived as "One stays (tishthati) in this and never falls (chyavate)"—named Liberation, is attained. It is attained merely by the absence of the covering (avarana), as if obtaining something already attained, due to being eternally attained.

"Yogaih" also—meaning scriptural actions performed with the intellect of offering to God and without desire for fruit are 'Yogas'; those who have them are also 'Yogas'. The suffix 'ach' is in the sense of possession (Matup) due to belonging to the Arsha-adi group.

By those 'Yogis' also—through the purification of the mind (sattva), via establishment in Knowledge preceded by Sannyasa, Shravana etc. which will be accomplished in the present or a future birth—that Place is reached. Therefore, due to having a single fruit, he who sees Sankhya and Yoga as One, he alone sees truly, not another.

This is the purport: For those in whom establishment in Knowledge preceded by Sannyasa is seen, by that very sign (linga), their establishment in action offered to God in previous births is inferred. Because the arising of an effect without a cause is impossible. That has been said: "In whatever other births there were, surely that duty was done by the person there; otherwise, there is no establishment in Brahman here."

Similarly, for those in whom establishment in action offered to God is seen, by that very sign, future establishment in Knowledge preceded by Sannyasa is inferred, because the causal aggregate never deviates from the effect.

Therefore, Karma Yoga must be performed first by the ignorant seeker of liberation for the purification of the mind, not Sannyasa. That (Sannyasa) indeed will happen by itself when dispassion becomes intense.

He discriminates the very unity of fruit with "Yat sankhyaih" etc.

That "Sthanam"—Proximity to Me—which is attained by "Sankhyas"—those established in Sankhya—that Place is "Gamyate"—attained—by "Yogaih"—by the performers of Yoga—also.

And thus, this is the purport: Since both are in the form of "earrings" (Kundala - ornaments of the Lord), through the knowledge of their true nature as they stand, for those established in both, there will be Proximity to the Face of the Lord alone; because their Place (location of the earrings) is one. Therefore, he who sees Sankhya and Yoga as "One"—consisting of the nature of earrings—he "Sees Me" (meaning of 'Sa Pashyati').

The "Place" named Liberation which is attained by "Sankhyas"—i.e., Sannyasis established in Knowledge; that very same place is attained even by "Yogas"—meaning those who perform actions as a means to attaining Knowledge, dedicating them to the Lord and not desiring the fruit for themselves, they are "Yogas" i.e., Yogis; by them also it is "reached" through the door of attaining Supreme Knowledge and Renunciation—this is the intention.

Therefore, he who sees Sankhya and Yoga as "One" because of the unity of fruit, he sees truly—this is the meaning.

(Objection): "If so, then Sannyasa alone is superior to Yoga (being the direct means); how then was it stated that 'But of the two, Karma Yoga is superior to Karma Sannyasa' (Gita 5.2)?" (Solution): Listen to the reason there—You asked regarding 'which one of the two is better' intending merely (mechanical) renunciation of action and Yoga of action. A reply corresponding to that was spoken by Me: that Karma Yoga is superior to Karma Sannyasa, 'without regard to Knowledge' (i.e., comparing two ignorant states).

But the Sannyasa which depends on Knowledge is intended by Me as 'Sankhya'. And that indeed is the Supreme Yoga. However, the Vedic Karma Yoga is figuratively called 'Yoga' and 'Sannyasa' because it is 'for the sake of that' (Tadarthyat).

How it is 'for the sake of that' is stated (next).

He clarifies this very point with "Yat sankhyaih" etc. That place of Liberation which is attained by those established in Sankhya; that very same is attained "Yogaih"—here the suffix 'ach' is used in the sense of possession due to being in the Arsha-adi group—

even by those established in Yoga, even while performing action; because they independently bestow the fruit and have the same subject/goal.

Therefore, he who sees Sankhya and Yoga as "One" due to having a single fruit, is a true seer.

यत् which? सांख्यैः by the Sankhyas? प्राप्यते is reached? स्थानम् place? तत् that? योगैः by the Yogis (Karma Yogis)? अपि also? गम्यते is reached? एकम् one? सांख्यम् the Sankhya (knowledge)? च and? योगम् Yoga (performance of action)? च and? यः who? पश्यति sees? सः he? पश्यति sees.Commentary Those who have renounced the world and are treading the path of Jnana Yoga or Vedanta are the Sankhyas. Through Sravana (hearing of the Srutis or Vedantic texts)? Manana (reflection on what is heard) and Nididhyasana (constant and profound meditation) they attain to Moksha or Kaivalya directly. Karma Yogis who do selfless service? who perform their duties without expectation of the fruits and who dedicate their actions as offerings unto the Lord also reach the same state as is attained by Sankhyas indirectly through the purification of their heart and renunciation and the conseent dawn of the knowledge of the Self. That man who sees that Sankhya and Yoga are one? as leading to the same result? sees rightly. (Cf.XIII.24?25V.2)

Sthanam, the State called Liberation; yat prapyate, that is reached; sankhyaih, by the Sankhyas, by the monks steadfast in Knowledge; tat prapyate, that is reached; yogaih, by the yogis; api, as well. The yogis are those who, as a means to the attainment of Knowledge, undertake actions by dedicating them to God without seeking any result for themselves. The purport is that, by them also that Stated is reached through the process of aciring monasticism which is a result of the knowledge of the supreme Reality.
Therefore, sah, he; pasyati, sees truly; yah, who; pasyati, sees; Sankhya and yoga as ekam, one, because of the identity of their results. This is the meaning.
Objection: If this be so, then monasticism itself excels yoga! Why, then, is it said, 'Among the two, Karma-yoga, however, excels renunciation of actions'?
Reply: Hear the reason for this: Having is veiw the mere giving up of actions and Karma-yoga, your estion was as to which one was better of the two. My answer was accordingly given that Karma-yoga excels renunciation of actions (resorted to) without Knowledge is Sankhya. This is what was meant by me. And that is indeed yoga in the highest sense. However, that which is the Vedic Karma-yoga is figuratively spoken of as yoga and renunciation since it leads to it (supreme Knowledge).
How does it lead to that? The answer is:

The fruit in the form of the vision of the self which is attained by the Sankhyans (i.e.) Jnana Yogins, the same is attained alone by those who are Karma Yogins. He alone is wise who sees that Sankhya and the Yoga are one and the same because of their having the same result.
Sri Krsna points out, if the aforesaid is the case, wherein the difference between them lies.