Gita 05.01 – Understand meanings of terms from context, not from preconception
arjuna uvāca
sannyāsaṁ karmaṇāṁ kṛṣṇa
punar yogaṁ ca śaṁsasi
yac chreya etayor ekaṁ
tan me brūhi su-niścitam (Bg 5.1)
Word-for-word:
arjunaḥ uvāca — Arjuna said; sannyāsam — renunciation; karmaṇām — of all activities; kṛṣṇa — O Kṛṣṇa; punaḥ — again; yogam — devotional service; ca — also; śaṁsasi — You are praising; yat — which; śreyaḥ — is more beneficial; etayoḥ — of these two; ekam — one; tat — that; me — unto me; brūhi — please tell; su-niścitam — definitely.
Translation:
Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa, first of all You ask me to renounce work, and then again You recommend work with devotion. Now will You kindly tell me definitely which of the two is more beneficial?
Explanation:
Arjuna said:
sannyāsaṁ karmaṇāṁ kṛṣṇa: O Kṛṣṇa, first You ask me to renounce work.
punar yogaṁ ca śaṁsasi: Then again You recommend work in devotion.
yac chreya etayor ekaṁ: Of these two, which is more beneficial?
tan me brūhi su-niścitam: Please tell me decisively.
The fifth chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā is entitled Karma-yoga: Action in Kṛṣṇa Consciousness. In Sanskrit, it is referred to as Karma-sannyāsa-yoga. Different ācāryas have given the chapters of the Bhagavad-gītā slightly different names, but within this framework, the third and fifth chapters are especially similar, both in title and in content. Each begins with a question from Arjuna on the same essential theme: should one engage in action, or should one embrace renunciation in the pursuit of knowledge?
If Arjuna had already asked this question in the third chapter and Kṛṣṇa had answered it, why does he raise it again?
On one level, this is the defining question that set the entire dialogue in motion, and therefore Arjuna desired a definitive answer. On another level, there is also a specific reason behind his renewed inquiry.
What Arjuna heard from Kṛṣṇa in the fourth chapter—especially verses 41 and 42—created ambiguity for him. In fact, throughout the fourth chapter, there is no direct reference to the war. When Kṛṣṇa spoke of the spirit of yajña permeating all activities, He was indicating that Arjuna should let that same spirit pervade his duty as a kṣatriya in battle. However, Arjuna failed to grasp this. In particular, verse 4.41 gave him the opposite impression. Then, in verse 4.42, when Kṛṣṇa repeated His instruction, Arjuna felt as if there was a contradiction.
Therefore, Arjuna says: sannyāsaṁ karmaṇāṁ kṛṣṇa punar yogaṁ ca śaṁsasi—“First You recommend renunciation of work, and then again You recommend yoga.” At this point in the Bhagavad-gītā, the word “yoga” specifically refers to karma-yoga, which involves action, not merely aṣṭāṅga-yoga, which centers on meditation. In fact, throughout the Bhagavad-gītā, yoga is often used as a generic term for any process by which one connects with the Absolute Truth.
Kṛṣṇa certainly does not use the word “yoga” in the sense of jñāna; rather, He contrasts yoga with jñāna in 3.3, where He says: loke ’smin dvi-vidhā niṣṭhā purā proktā mayānagha jñāna-yogena sāṅkhyānāṁ karma-yogena yoginām. Here, jñāna-yoga is identified with sāṅkhya, and karma-yogena yoginām refers to those engaged in karma-yoga. Thus, although Kṛṣṇa uses the word “yoga” in both contexts, He calls the practitioners of karma-yoga “yogis” (karma-yogena yoginām), while He refers to the practitioners of jñāna-yoga as sāṅkhyas (sāṅkhyānām), not explicitly as yogis. Still, jñāna-yogis are indeed yogis, and Kṛṣṇa implicitly acknowledges this by applying the term yoga to their path—jñāna-yoga.
In this context, however, Kṛṣṇa uses the word “yoga” to indicate an active engagement with the Absolute Truth—living in connection with spiritual reality. This engagement begins with karma-yoga and, as the Gītā progresses, ultimately matures into bhakti-yoga.
In the specific context of verse 5.1, Arjuna says: “First You praised renunciation of work, and then You praised yoga, which involves performing work.” He has understood the usages and employs the terms in the same way Kṛṣṇa has used them. Thus, Arjuna uses the word “yoga” to indicate the active pursuit of connection through karma-yoga. He then points out that Kṛṣṇa appears to have given two instructions that seem contradictory to him. Therefore, he asks: yac chreya etayor ekaṁ — “Of these two, which one is truly for the long-term good?” tan me brūhi su-niścitam — “Please tell me decisively.”
Time and again, Arjuna has asked for śreyaḥ and for one definitive path. This shows that he is a sincere and serious seeker, not someone merely looking for an answer that validates his own opinion. When a person approaches a teacher with such an attitude—wanting only confirmation of their own stand—any ambiguity in the teacher’s response can easily be twisted to reinforce their preconceived position. Arjuna, however, does not seek to exploit ambiguity for self-justification; he genuinely wants to know the truth.
Therefore, he asks this question: yac chreyaḥ etayor ekaṁ tan me brūhi su-niścitam — “Please tell me decisively which of the two is truly for my ultimate good.”
Let us consider the context of this particular question. What prompted Arjuna to ask it—not just in light of his overall dilemma, “Should I fight or should I not fight?”—but with this specific wording? The immediate background lies in 4.41, which states:
yoga-sannyasta-karmāṇaṁ jñāna-sañchinna-saṁśayam
ātmavantaṁ na karmāṇi nibadhnanti dhanañ-jaya
In particular, the first half of this verse (4.41a) can be interpreted in two different ways. The compound “yoga-sannyasta-karmāṇam” raises the question: what kind of yoga is being referred to here? Since “sannyasta-karmāṇam” literally means “one who has renounced work,” the phrase could be understood as “the yoga of giving up work.” The verse then continues, jñāna-sañchinna-saṁśayam—“one whose doubts have been cut by knowledge.” Taken together, the verse seems to describe a person who practices the yoga of renunciation and resolves doubts through jñāna, and in that state, is not bound by work.
Looking at the full verse, it is not that Kṛṣṇa is literally recommending renunciation of work. He immediately adds: ātmavantaṁ na karmāṇi nibadhnanti dhanañ-jaya—“situated in the Self, one is not bound by karma.” This clarifies that renunciation is not about abandoning action entirely. The natural question then arises: if Kṛṣṇa were truly instructing Arjuna to adopt karma-sannyasa, it would implicitly follow that with no action—through renunciation—there would be no reaction.
Yet Kṛṣṇa says: ātmavantaṁ na karmāṇi nibadhnanti — “the self-realized person is not bound by karma.” How should this be understood? If one renounces work, then there is no further assurance required that one will not be bound, because that is Arjuna’s pre-existing conception already that action inevitably causes bondage, and therefore renunciation of action leads to liberation. However, Kṛṣṇa uses the three words “yoga-sannyasta-karmāṇaṁ” as a single compound, conveying the meaning: practice yoga by performing action in the spirit of renunciation—sannyasta-karmāṇaṁ.
It is not that one must give up all action; it is not karma-sannyāsa in the literal sense. Rather, it is sannyasta-karmāṇaṁ—in the practice of yoga, perform your work in the spirit of renunciation, offering your actions for a higher cause. This becomes clearer when we consider the next verse, 4.42:
tasmād ajñāna-sambhūtaṁ hṛt-sthaṁ jñānāsinātmanaḥ chittvainaṁ saṁśayaṁ yogam ātiṣṭhottiṣṭha bhārata
tasmād ajñāna-sambhūtaṁ—that which has arisen from ignorance;
hṛt-sthaṁ jñānāsinātmanaḥ—with the sword-like knowledge, destroy the doubts lodged in your heart;
chittvainaṁ saṁśayaṁ yogam—with the sword of knowledge, cut through ignorance.
Does this instruction refer only to the inner war? While it certainly addresses the internal struggle, one may validly ask whether its scope is limited to that alone.
Kṛṣṇa answers this by stating: ātiṣṭhottiṣṭha bhārata. He gives a direct response: ātiṣṭha—“be situated”; uttiṣṭha—“rise”; bhārata—“O Arjuna.” In other words, rise and prepare yourself for the fight. By using the word uttiṣṭha, Kṛṣṇa communicates clearly and unambiguously exactly what He wants Arjuna to do.
At the same time, Kṛṣṇa intends to elaborate, which is why He uses terminology that is slightly complex. This naturally leads to a continuation of the discussion. In the fifth chapter, although the overarching theme—whether one should practice karma or pursue jñāna—remains similar, the discussion goes much deeper. We will see how this unfolds and how the chapter concludes: with renunciation, but without frustration, emphasizing renunciation not of action itself, but within action.
Suffice it to say at this stage that the apparent contradiction between 4.41 and 4.42—where in 4.41 Kṛṣṇa seems to ask Arjuna to adopt karma-sannyasa—is actually resolved. Kṛṣṇa is instructing him to practice yoga in such a way that, while performing action, he maintains the attitude of renunciation, visualizing his activities as part of his yogic connection and aligning his consciousness accordingly.
Hence, Kṛṣṇa has not instructed Arjuna to renounce work—certainly not the duty of a kshatriya in battle. Yet, Arjuna misinterprets it in that way. This misunderstanding highlights the subtlety and complexity inherent in the circumstances we face. Kṛṣṇa provides an unambiguous answer but does not directly chastise or belittle anyone acting under karmic obligations. Instead, He encourages all to practice yoga according to their situation, showing that anyone can progress toward perfection. The universality of bhakti-yoga will be further emphasized as the Gītā continues.
Thank you.
Leave A Comment