Now Shri Krishna will conclude this, why Karma Yoga is better and why Gyan Yoga has to be discouraged: 

 

Bg 5.6

sannyāsas tu mahā-bāho

duḥkham āptum ayogataḥ

yoga-yukto munir brahma

na cireṇādhigacchati

Word for word: 

sannyāsaḥ — the renounced order of life; tu — but; mahā–bāho — O mighty-armed one; duḥkham — distress; āptum — afflicts one with; ayogataḥ — without devotional service; yoga–yuktaḥ — one engaged in devotional service; muniḥ — a thinker; brahma — the Supreme; na cireṇa — without delay; adhigacchati — attains.

Translation: 

Merely renouncing all activities yet not engaging in the devotional service of the Lord cannot make one happy. But a thoughtful person engaged in devotional service can achieve the Supreme without delay.

 

sannyāsas tu mahā-bāho=> O Arjuna you are Maha baho. 

duḥkham āptum ayogataḥ => When one does Sannyas without doing yoga that means one renounces the action, ayogataḥ. Then one gets duḥkha, why duḥkha because inactivity is difficult, it is unsustainable, it is unnatural.

yoga-yukto munir brahma=> On the other hand if somebody is Yoga Yukta such a muni is engaged in activity brahma na cireṇādhigacchati -> such a person attains brahma na cireṇā -> Not after long time, cirena is long time. adhigacchati -> will attain. 

 

So Shri Krishna is again saying, if one doesn’t have connection with the absolute truth duḥkham āptum ayogataḥ, he will get duhkha. So when one is detached from matter one is not allowed to do any activity, fearing that he will be bound, but he will not be satisfied, so it is difficult to be inactive, it is difficult to be without pleasure and because one is ayogatah one is not able to connect to the absolute truth, one is not experiencing higher happiness, so one is neither here nor there, one is trying to come out of matter but he is not getting spirit so in that situation one is lost, one is on Kalesha, duḥkham āptum ayogataḥ. Therefore Shri Krishna says what one should do is yoga-yukto, one will soon attain liberation, one will attain Brahman, Brahman is a generic word used to attain absolute truth.

So Srila Prabhupada said Gyana refers to Mayavadi but those mayavadi will not give ultimate conclusion 

Srila Prabhupada: But the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, engaged in the studies of Sāṅkhya and Vedānta and speculation, cannot relish the transcendental service of the Lord. Because their studies become very tedious, they sometimes become tired of Brahman speculation, and thus they take shelter of the Bhāgavatam without proper understanding

If we look at Vedic history, Shankaracharya did not comment on Srimad Bhagavatam, Srila Ramanujachary did not comment on Srimad Bhagavatam.

Madhvacahrya has written Bhagvatam Tatparya Nirnaya and he wrote Mahabharat Tatparya Nirnaya. 

Bhagavatam is a profound philosophy which concludes in personalist theistic devotion. Shankaracharya did not mess with it and since Ramanujacharaya was responding to Shankaracharya he also didn’t write on that.

Shankaracharya appeared in the 7th century, so after him Ramanujacharaya came in the 10th – 11th century . Madhvacharya came in 11-12th century, after that in medieval history Bhakti spreads, Bhakti was there long ego when Vedic culture was present in the world but we are talking about recent history now, so when Bhakti started the appeal of mayavad started paling in comparison to Bhakti. In mayavadi path unless you renounce the world you cannot begin your spiritual journey seriously, because you are in illusion, so you have to come out of illusion, so everybody has to take Sannyas. So it is a very demanding path and not only demanding but it also doesn’t lead to the ultimate destination.

So mayavadis were not able to keep people and also not able to sustain themselves, so within Mayavad Bhakti cult begins, so among mayavadis also some people started practicing Bhakti not Bhakti as ultimate goal but they started practicing and also started reading Srimad Bhagavatam and started teaching on basis of Bhagavatam e.g. Madhusudhan Saravati in vedic line has written a book on first sloka of Srimad Bhagavatam. So Bhagavatam is commented by Mayavadis and nowadays many mayavadis do Bhagavatam Saptah. But they cannot enter into the melody of Bhagavatam they wanted to interpret everything metaphorically and they almost feel embraced by Sri Krishna’s pastime with Gopis, this man is absolute truth why He is acting immorally, and they try to explain everything as symbolic or whatever, they teach what does rasa lila represents, it represents merging of soul with absolute truth, actually this is not at all what the Bhagavatam is teaching and this is quite offensive but even they speak on Bhagavatam they cannot relish Bhagavatam because their underlying defining conceptions are all wrong. They are all not studying Bhagavatam to understand Bhagvan, they are studying Bhagavatam to transcend Bhagvan, to denigrate and destroy Bhagvan after attending Brahman. That is why they cannot be satisfied, so that is the reason there is strand of Bhakti in impersonalist also, sometimes there are some people having genuine bhakti are also getting attracted to mayavadi path because they think those organizations are prominent and are respected in people’s eye, they think I wanted to practice spirituality, these people are doing bhakti so let me also do Bhakti, this indicates that all people in Mayavadi organization are not mayavadis, they are mayavadis by affiliation they are not mayavadis by inclination. Sridhar Swami was like that, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also referred to his commentary and glorified his commentary. Sridhar Swami was not belonging to Vaishanava Sampradaya he was great devotee and an acharaya but externally he belongs to Mayavada sampradaya, Lord Chaitanya understood his heart, he has given highest devotion conclusions but some places his commentary can be misunderstood but when we understand the context and heart of Sridhar Swami there is no mistake. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu didn’t approve Ballava Bhatt’s attempt to counter and  correct Sridhar Swami commentary. But what was Ballava Bhatt’s objection? Everything is contextual, in his commentary consistency is there but because of affiliations he has to make certain statements. Srila Jiva Goswami uses Sridhar Swami’s commentary as standard reference for commenting on Srimad Bhagavatam and he says tika-iti, when Sridhar swami quotes personalism Jiva goswami quotes directly and he explains it but certain places where because of his affiliation he has to give some impersonals explanations, those places Jiva Goswami doesn’t refer to Sridhar Swami at all and he says according to imaginary understanding some people explain like this but it is not so and then he gives the actual understanding, so Jiva Goswami knows how Vaishanava etiquettes has to be maintained which Ballava Bhattacharya could not do, Mahaprabhu told him I don’t want to hear this, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu chastised him quite a bit strongly at that time so there may be some people who are like impersonalist but they are mayavadis by affiliation and not mayavadi by inclination, so these people when they get proper understanding they will return from mayavad and come to Bhakti Yoga if they are given the right understanding.