Gita 03.07 – Regulation is more conducive for advancement than renunciation
yas tv indriyāṇi manasā
niyamyārabhate ’rjuna
karmendriyaiḥ karma-yogam
asaktaḥ sa viśiṣyate
Word-to-word
yaḥ — one who; tu — but; indriyāṇi — the senses; manasā — by the mind; niyamya — regulating; ārabhate — begins; arjuna — O Arjuna; karma-indriyaiḥ — by the active sense organs; karma-yogam — devotion; asaktaḥ — without attachment; saḥ — he; viśiṣyate — is by far the better.
Translation
On the other hand, if a sincere person tries to control the active senses by the mind and begins karma-yoga [in Kṛṣṇa consciousness] without attachment, he is by far superior.
Explanation
Krishna advises Arjuna to practice Karma Yoga—the path of selfless action—and contrasts two types of individuals: the one who genuinely controls the senses while remaining active in the world, and the one who falsely renounces action. In verse 3.6 of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna criticizes the latter—a person who outwardly renounces but inwardly remains attached. In comparison, a disciplined householder who engages in detached action is far superior. Krishna has already outlined three reasons why the path of inaction should be avoided:
1. It is impossible to completely abstain from action.
2. It is ultimately unfruitful.
3. It can lead to adharma (unrighteousness).
To truly practice Karma Yoga, one must not merely restrain the senses but follow specific disciplines or rules that facilitate such control. The goal is not suppression, but transformation of one’s actions into offerings. The Bhagavad Gita advocates engagement with the world, not its rejection. In most societies, marriage and the household order form the foundation of the social structure. In a spiritual context, the renounced order serves as an inspiration—providing a living ideal for those who are still active in worldly life but aspire to transcend it eventually. There is often debate over which is superior: the renounced order or the householder life. However, such comparisons are misguided. The Gita presents a vision of cooperation, not confrontation. Both orders have their roles in the broader framework of Varnashrama Dharma and contribute to the collective spiritual progress of society. There are four ashrams (stages of life) in the Vedic tradition: Brahmacharya (student life), Grihastha (householder life), Vanaprastha (retired life), and Sannyasa (renounced life). Typically, one progresses sequentially through these stages—from Brahmacharya to Grihastha and then onward. However, it’s also possible to move directly from Brahmacharya to Sannyasa. The Jabala Upanishad affirms that when one feels the genuine inspiration to renounce, one should do so—implying that a Brahmachari may directly become a Sannyasi, provided there is sincere determination and a strong will for self-purification.
Importantly, both the householder and renounced orders support and reinforce each other. In any society, the primary drivers of day-to-day functioning are the householders. They sustain society not only by engaging in various occupations and responsibilities but also by ensuring the continuation of future generations. While the renounced order holds a revered place—especially in Indian culture—it is the householders who form the practical backbone of society. Historically, renounced orders have existed in other traditions too, such as in the Catholic Church. However, due to widespread abuses by monks and even certain Popes, the Christian Reformation rejected monkhood altogether. As a result, Protestant denominations generally do not have a monastic tradition.
It is noteworthy that despite the high regard for renunciation in Indian culture, India remained materially prosperous for centuries. This illustrates that honoring the renounced order does not necessarily lead to material decline, especially when all ashrams are functioning harmoniously.
India was so prosperous that, decade after decade, century after century, and even over millennia, it attracted waves of invaders seeking to gain from its wealth. But who created this prosperity?
At a philosophical level, one could say that India’s prosperity stemmed from its people living in accordance with Dharma, and indeed, Dharma leads to Artha (material wealth). However, Dharma does not act in a vacuum—it manifests through people. The real agents of prosperity were the householders, who worked diligently to manage and sustain society. While India is rich in natural resources, those resources needed to be used wisely—and it was the householder class who did so.
Indian society not only functioned but thrived because of the responsibility and industriousness of its householders. Their commitment led not only to material abundance but also to a strong moral fabric. This morality was rooted in the deep sense of responsibility with which householders upheld their duties. In this context, Karma Yoga—working in a spirit of detachment—plays a key role. Did all Indians live as Karma Yogis across generations? No. Many followed Karma Kanda, performing rituals to gain Punya (spiritual merit) in hopes of achieving Artha (wealth) and Kama (pleasure) either in this life or the next. Still, Karma Yoga was upheld as an ideal, and many aspired to it, even if few lived it perfectly. The key point is that even if not everyone practiced Karma Yoga perfectly, many aspired to it—and that collective aspiration helped maintain a moral balance in society. When Artha (wealth) and Kama (pleasure) are pursued without the guiding principles of Dharma and the higher aim of Moksha (liberation), it leads to unsustainable growth, which in turn breeds misery and suffering. The solution lies in recognizing the holistic framework of Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. As we’ll see later in this chapter, even a Karma Yogi may externally resemble a Karmakandi—someone who follows rituals and duties for material rewards. But the key difference is that the Karma Yogi is not driven by desires for Artha and Kama; they act out of duty and detachment. Earlier, Krishna explained why premature renunciation is discouraged. In contrast, engaging in one’s prescribed duties gradually cultivates an ethos of selflessness. While working for one’s family may seem like extended selfishness, it still requires acting for someone beyond oneself. This marks the beginning of spiritual progress.
From there, the circle of selflessness can grow: working for one’s family, then for society, for the broader community, and ultimately for one’s Varna (social function). This gradual expansion of selfless action leads to the highest form of Dharma—Paradharma—where the circle of care and responsibility embraces Krishna, the source of all existence. In this way, the circle of love expands to embrace everything. While this is a lofty ideal, the journey toward it unfolds gradually, step by step.
Krishna teaches that by working with detachment, one progresses in spiritual realization. As this inner growth deepens, it helps one avoid the pitfalls of adharma, and the impracticality of complete inaction. Instead of renouncing action prematurely, Krishna encourages us to act according to our nature, and through that aligned action, we grow—in realization, wisdom, and spirituality.
Thank you.
Leave A Comment