Gītā 5.2 – The path that takes us away from bondage fastest is the best
śrī-bhagavān uvāca
sannyāsaḥ karma-yogaś ca
niḥśreyasa-karāv ubhau
tayos tu karma-sannyāsāt
karma-yogo viśiṣyate
Synonyms:
śrī-bhagavān uvāca — the Personality of Godhead said; sannyāsaḥ — renunciation of work; karma-yogaḥ — work in devotion; ca — also; niḥśreyasa-karau — leading to the path of liberation; ubhau — both; tayoḥ — of the two; tu — but; karma-sannyāsāt — in comparison to the renunciation of fruitive work; karma-yogaḥ — work in devotion; viśiṣyate — is better.
Translation:
The Personality of Godhead replied: The renunciation of work and work in devotion are both good for liberation. But, of the two, work in devotional service is better than renunciation of work.
Explanation:
Kṛṣṇa now begins to answer the question Arjuna raised in the previous verse. Arjuna had asked, “Kṛṣṇa, You have praised karma-sannyāsa and also praised yoga. Please tell me the one path I should follow, the path that truly leads to śreya.”
Kṛṣṇa replies:
sannyāsaḥ karma-yogaś ca: The path of renunciation and the path of action,
niḥśreyasa-karāv ubhau: both lead to the long-term good.
tayos tu karma-sannyāsāt: But between the two, when compared with renunciation,
karma-yogo viśiṣyate: karma-yoga, the path of action, is better.
Looking at the terminology, Kṛṣṇa specifically uses the words “sannyāsaḥ” and “karma-yoga,” affirming that while both paths are beneficial, karma-yoga is superior.
If we look carefully at how Arjuna phrased his question, he said, sannyāsaṁ karmaṇāṁ kṛṣṇa punar yogaṁ ca śaṁsasi (Bg 5.1). Arjuna used the terms karma-sannyāsa and yoga. Kṛṣṇa, however, does not pair karma with sannyāsa, but with yoga. Arjuna presented the two alternatives as karma-sannyāsa and yoga, whereas Kṛṣṇa initially refers to them simply as sannyāsa and karma-yoga. Later in His reply, He states tayos tu karma-sannyāsāt karma-yogo viśiṣyate, explicitly contrasting karma-sannyāsa with karma-yoga.
Therefore, among the three terms used for these two concepts, Kṛṣṇa makes it clear in verse 5.2, especially in parts C and D, that He is specifically referring to karma-sannyāsa and karma-yoga.
Karma-sannyāsa refers to the act of renouncing work, whereas karma-yoga refers to engaging in work as a means of connecting with the Absolute Truth—performing karma in a spirit of yoga. The terms Kṛṣṇa uses are unambiguous, and so is His message: compared to karma-sannyāsa, or renunciation of work, karma-yoga—working in a mood of yoga—is far superior.
The word “viśiṣyate” means “superior” or “better.” Kṛṣṇa has used this term earlier as well, in 3.7, where He compared the regulated householder with the show-bottle renunciate:
yas tv indriyāṇi manasā niyamyārabhate ’rjuna
karmendriyaiḥ karma-yogam asaktaḥ sa viśiṣyate
This verse concludes with the word viśiṣyate, emphasizing that one who controls the senses with the mind and engages in regulated work as a householder is considered better.
It is important to grasp the significance of what Kṛṣṇa states in verse 5.2. He declares that both paths are good:
sannyāsaḥ karma-yogaś ca niḥśreyasa-karāv ubhau – both lead to niḥśreyasa, or ultimate, long-term good.
Why does Kṛṣṇa emphasize that both lead to long-term good? Generally, in this world, we are attached to material things, and because of this attachment, we remain bound in material existence. From the perspective of liberation from this bondage, anything that helps us rise above material entanglement—whether karma-yoga or karma-sannyāsa—is considered good.
It is not that either of these paths is bad. Arjuna is not choosing between good and bad. In life, we often face moral choices, where one option is right and the other wrong, and such decisions require moral strength. But beyond moral dilemmas, there are choices like the one Arjuna faces here—where neither option is wrong, for both are good. Yet one is better. Thus, the choice is not between good and bad, but between good and better, or even good and best.
Kṛṣṇa says both paths are good. Does this contradict what He stated earlier, when He criticized those who renounce externally but internally meditate on sense objects, calling them hypocrites? No. Here, Kṛṣṇa is referring to sincere spiritual practitioners who genuinely desire to renounce. Such individuals are considered good because they have distanced themselves from material life and are earnestly striving to pursue the true goals of renunciation.
Here, however, Kṛṣṇa is speaking about what is easier to practice. He elaborates on this in later verses. In 5.6, He will explain that sannyāsa is more difficult. Without the support of yoga—connection with the higher reality—the practice of sannyāsa becomes excessively demanding and even distressing. In contrast, one who practices yoga steadily and smoothly ascends to the higher reality.
Therefore, the point Kṛṣṇa emphasizes here is that both paths are good. Indeed, anything that helps a person rise above material bondage and illusion is beneficial. For Arjuna, however, the path that will most effectively and practically help him is karma-yoga. Kṛṣṇa will analyze this further in the verses to come.
Arjuna’s question in 5.1 was about śreya (yac chreya etayor ekaṁ), which means long-term good. Kṛṣṇa’s answer in 5.2 uses the word niḥśreya, a closely related term with the prefix “ni.” He affirms that both paths are śreya, for the material world is dominated by preya—short-term material pleasures. In contrast, the spiritual realm is characterized by long-term, eternal joy and lasting attainment.
Both these paths lead us toward that eternal realm. In that sense, both are good. Yet, because karma-yoga is easier to practice, more natural, and allows us to engage in activities aligned with our inherent nature, it is superior.
Thank you.
Leave A Comment