Gita 03.04 – Don’t equate the external with the essential

Link- https://www.thespiritualscientist.com/gita-03-04-dont-equate-the-external-with-the-essential/

na karmaṇām anārambhān
naiṣkarmyaṁ puruṣo ’śnute
na ca sannyasanād eva
siddhiṁ samadhigacchati

Translation
Not by merely abstaining from work can one achieve freedom from reaction, nor by renunciation alone can one attain perfection.

Explanation
In Bhagavad Gita 3.4, Krishna begins responding to Arjuna’s question from verses 3.1 and 3.2 about the best course of action for him. In the previous verse, Krishna explained that there are two distinct paths—Karma Yoga (the path of action) and Jnana Yoga (the path of knowledge). Now, Krishna clarifies that external renunciation does not automatically lead to inner realization. We should not mistake outer inaction for inner detachment. The verse states: na karmanam anarambhan naishkarmyam purusho’shnute—meaning, one does not attain freedom from action (naishkarmya) simply by giving up action (na karmanam anarambham), or by not performing one’s duties. Krishna emphasizes that true detachment comes through the right engagement, not through avoidance of action. Naishkarmya refers to a state of freedom from karmic reactions—where one acts without incurring further bondage. It arises from the realization that the self is beyond action and reaction. Krishna emphasizes that inaction is not the path to freedom from karma; simply avoiding action does not lead to liberation.
Let’s consider the second part of the verse: na cha sannyasanad eva siddhim samadhigacchati—Krishna says that merely accepting sannyasa (renunciation) does not automatically lead to siddhi (perfection) or spiritual success. In other words, external changes, whether it’s renouncing action or formally adopting the life of a renunciate, do not guarantee internal realization such as naishkarmya, siddhi, or liberation. In a spiritually informed culture, it’s understood that every action brings a reaction. These reactions bind the soul, requiring one to take birth again to exhaust them—this cycle is called karma bandhana. Therefore, careless action leads to bondage, but the solution is not inaction, but detached, selfless action. One might think: If action leads to entanglement, then giving up action—inactivity—must lead to freedom. But does it really? That’s what Krishna questions here. He clarifies that inaction does not necessarily lead to freedom from karmic reaction. Why? Because in certain situations, inaction itself can be blameworthy—it can be a form of culpable action. For example, imagine a doctor who sees a patient suffering and knows exactly what medicine can save them, yet chooses not to act. The doctor might claim, “I didn’t do anything—I didn’t harm the patient.” But in truth, the failure to act is a serious moral failing, often considered a crime of negligence. The doctor didn’t poison the patient, but by not saving them, they are still responsible for the outcome. In this way, Krishna emphasizes that inaction is not automatically virtuous, and in some cases, it can lead to greater karmic consequences than action. When a doctor has the ability to save a patient and chooses not to act, that inaction is culpable—it is blameworthy. In the same way, if someone has the power to do the right thing but fails to act, they can still incur karmic reaction. For example, if the police fail to protect citizens when they are in a position to do so, that too is a serious moral failure. Krishna, therefore, presents a key principle: just because action can lead to bondage, it doesn’t mean that inaction automatically leads to freedom. Similarly, mere renunciation does not lead to liberation.
Accepting sannyasa (the renounced order) is taking up an external role or ashram, which is meant to support internal spiritual growth. However, sannyasa in itself is not the goal—it is a means to help one deepen their inner renunciation. To genuinely embrace sannyasa, one must already have a substantial level of detachment. And as one follows this path sincerely, sannyasa can further nurture complete renunciation, ultimately leading to liberation. There are many aphoristic statements in Sanskrit that are popularly quoted, but not necessarily philosophically accurate. One such saying is: “Dandagrahan matrena naro Narayana bhavet”—which means, “Simply by accepting the danda (staff) of a sannyasi, a man becomes Narayana (God).” While this sounds dramatic and visually striking—as if merely taking up the symbol of renunciation transforms one into the Supreme—it is far from the philosophical truth.
In reality, the individual soul (nara) can never become Narayana, the Supreme Lord. As Krishna says in the Gita (mamaivamsho jivaloke jivabhutah sanatanah), we are eternally His parts and parcels. The jiva (soul) remains distinct from the Supreme, even in liberation. So, external symbols like the danda do not confer divinity—they are meaningful only when accompanied by genuine internal realization and devotion.
We are eternally the parts and parcels of Narayana (God)—sanatana—and thus we will never become Narayana Himself. In fact, it’s not just that we won’t become Narayana; we won’t even attain liberation simply by accepting the renounced order of life. Why? Because bondage is caused by attachment, not merely by action. Taking sannyasa (the renounced order) is an external step, and while it can support our spiritual progress, it does not guarantee inner detachment. Freedom from bondage requires freedom from attachment, not just an external change in lifestyle. We can think in terms of three layers: the external, the internal, and the eternal. The external—like sannyasa—can assist the internal transformation (detachment, realization, devotion), and it is that internal transformation which leads to the eternal goal: liberation and spiritual fulfillment.
When we truly understand, “I am not the body, I am the soul,” we begin to desire to live at the level of the soul. And because the soul is eternal, we naturally seek to live an eternal, liberated existence. To live at the eternal level, one must seek and experience eternal happiness. However, there are certain spiritual practices that can guide us toward this goal. These practices may involve external actions—things that are visible and outwardly noticeable. For example, some might take mauna vrata (vow of silence), stop certain activities, or wear saffron clothes as signs of renunciation. While these external actions can be meaningful, they do not automatically lead to inner transformation or indicate that someone has attained the eternal.
Krishna cautions that simply adopting the external practices of the Jnana Marga (path of knowledge)—like renouncing action or wearing the attire of a renunciant—does not guarantee liberation or perfection. External renunciation does not, by itself, lead to liberation. One must develop the internal substance—the true essence of detachment, knowledge, and devotion. Krishna recommends a process for cultivating this internal transformation, and this process will vary based on the level and disposition of the individual seeker. For some, the renounced order may be the most suitable path, while for others, engagement in the world as a householder might be more appropriate. Therefore, don’t assume that the Jnana Marga (path of knowledge) is inherently superior. Instead, understand your Adhikar—your level of qualification—and choose the path that aligns with your nature and spiritual readiness. In the following verses, Krishna will analyze and explain why the path of Karma Yoga (selfless action) is the best for Arjuna.
Thank you.