Gita 05.05 – Sankhya and yoga aim for the same destination, yet they aren’t same
yat sāṅkhyaiḥ prāpyate sthānaṁ
tad yogair api gamyate
ekaṁ sāṅkhyaṁ ca yogaṁ ca
yaḥ paśyati sa paśyati
Word-to-word
yat — what; sāṅkhyaiḥ — by means of Sāṅkhya philosophy; prāpyate — is achieved; sthānam — place; tat — that; yogaiḥ — by devotional service; api — also; gamyate — one can attain; ekam — one; sāṅkhyam — analytical study; ca — and; yogam — action in devotion; ca — and; yaḥ — one who; paśyati — sees; saḥ — he; paśyati — actually sees.
Translation
One who knows that the position reached by means of analytical study can also be attained by devotional service, and who therefore sees analytical study and devotional service to be on the same level, sees things as they are.
Explanation
Krishna continues answering Arjuna’s question about which is better — Karma Yoga or Karma Sannyasa. Here, He uses Sankhya to refer to renunciation (Karma Sannyasa) and Yoga to refer to the path of action (Karma Yoga). In the previous verse, Krishna stated that the wise see no real difference between the two, since both lead to the same destination. Now He reiterates and clarifies this point. A key phrase here is yaḥ paśyati sa paśyati — “one who sees, truly sees.” This repetition is a rhetorical device often found in scripture, emphasizing that this is the authentic vision of reality. Just as a driver who notices a speed breaker actually perceives the road correctly, so one who recognizes the unity of these two paths truly perceives reality.
What is to be seen? That the destination reached by Sankhya is the same as that reached by Yoga. In this sense, both paths are one.
But in what sense exactly? Not in content. If there were no distinction, there would be no need for two separate paths. Sankhya and Yoga differ both in name and in practice: Karma Yoga involves action, while Sankhya emphasizes renunciation of action and inner contemplation. Their content is different.
Their unity lies in intent: both are meant to lead the practitioner to liberation. Those who understand that both Sankhya and Yoga lead to the same destination are the true seers.
But does this verse support the popular claim that the Gita teaches all paths lead to the same goal? No. Krishna is not speaking of all paths here; He is specifically comparing just two — Sankhya (renunciation) and Yoga (action). In fact, elsewhere in the Gita, Krishna makes it clear that different paths can lead to different destinations. For instance, in 4.39–40 and 3.31–32, He contrasts the faithful with the faithless, showing that their ends are not the same. So this verse should not be generalized as proof that every path leads to the same goal. Rather, Krishna is saying that these two paths share the same intent.
Later, in Chapter 12, He will explain that the impersonal path of renunciation, meditation, and analysis is far more difficult. Even in the very next verse (5.6), Krishna states: duḥkham āptum ayogataḥ — renunciation without Yoga leads to misery. Thus, He is not equating the two in all respects. He acknowledges their differences in practice but emphasizes their common intent: both are meant to lead to liberation.
Why does Krishna clarify this? Because Arjuna’s practical concern was simple: “Should I fight or not?” He saw only two options — act or renounce. To him, renunciation seemed superior, since he thought action would bind him while renunciation would free him. Krishna’s teaching here is to correct that misconception: action performed in the spirit of Yoga is not binding but liberating.
Krishna has already explained several times that action, when performed with detachment, can also lead to liberation. In this way, He has indirectly refuted Arjuna’s assumption that action necessarily leads to entanglement while renunciation leads to freedom. What Krishna emphasizes here is that the destination attained by renunciation can also be attained through detached action. In other words, Arjuna should not fear losing anything by not choosing renunciation. By remaining on the path of action—if performed in the spirit of Karma Yoga—he too can attain the supreme destination.
It is also important to note that this verse is not about renunciation within the path of Bhakti. Krishna discusses Bhakti Yoga in detail later, beginning from Chapter 7. In Bhakti, even those in the renounced order are not inactive; their life is full of devotional service. For example, Srila Prabhupada was externally renounced but constantly engaged in dynamic service—traveling, preaching, and working tirelessly for Krishna far more than most people of his age.
Thus, the action–renunciation dichotomy applies to the paths of Karma and Jnana, not to Bhakti. Within Bhakti, both householders and renunciates remain active in service.
The essence of this verse, in the Krishna–Arjuna dialogue, is that Arjuna should not imagine he will miss out by rejecting renunciation. Whatever fruit renunciation could yield, he can achieve equally—if not more securely—through detached action performed as Karma Yoga.
Krishna explains that one who understands this truth—that fighting on the battlefield can lead to the same destination as renouncing the world and meditating in silence—is the true seer. In this way, He encourages Arjuna to persevere in his Kshatriya duty, performing it in the spirit of Karma Yoga.
Thank you.
Leave A Comment