{
  "verse_id": "3.4",
  "mūla": {
    "devanāgarī": "न कर्मणाम् अनारम्भान् नैष्कर्म्यं पुरुषो ऽश्नुते | न च संन्यसनाद् एव सिद्धिं समधिगच्छति",
    "iast": "na karmaṇām anārambhān naiṣkarmyaṃ puruṣo 'śnute | na ca saṃnyasanād eva siddhiṃ samadhigacchati",
    "chapter_position": "Chapter 3 (Karma-Yoga (The Yoga of Action)), verse 4",
    "speaker": "Krishna",
    "addressed_to": "Arjuna"
  },
  "word_by_word": [
    {
      "surface_form": "na",
      "lemma": "na",
      "grammar": "",
      "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
      "theme_lists": [],
      "surface_devanagari": "न"
    },
    {
      "surface_form": "karmaṇām",
      "lemma": "karman",
      "grammar": "genitive neuter plural noun",
      "senses_attested_in_panel": [
        {
          "sense": "अनारम्भाद्",
          "school": "viśiṣṭādvaita",
          "weight": 0.8,
          "witnesses": [
            "ramanuja",
            "vedantadeshika"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "theme_lists": [],
      "surface_devanagari": "कर्मणाम्"
    },
    {
      "surface_form": "anārambhāt",
      "lemma": "anārambha",
      "grammar": "ablative masculine singular noun",
      "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
      "theme_lists": [],
      "surface_devanagari": "अनारम्भात्"
    },
    {
      "surface_form": "naiṣkarmyam",
      "lemma": "naiṣkarmya",
      "grammar": "accusative neuter singular noun",
      "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
      "theme_lists": [],
      "surface_devanagari": "नैष्कर्म्यम्"
    },
    {
      "surface_form": "puruṣaḥ",
      "lemma": "puruṣa",
      "grammar": "nominative masculine singular noun",
      "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
      "theme_lists": [],
      "surface_devanagari": "पुरुषः"
    },
    {
      "surface_form": "aśnute",
      "lemma": "√aś",
      "grammar": "present indicative 3rd person singular verb",
      "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
      "theme_lists": [],
      "surface_devanagari": "अश्नुते"
    },
    {
      "surface_form": "na",
      "lemma": "na",
      "grammar": "",
      "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
      "theme_lists": [],
      "surface_devanagari": "न"
    },
    {
      "surface_form": "ca",
      "lemma": "ca",
      "grammar": "",
      "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
      "theme_lists": [],
      "surface_devanagari": "च"
    },
    {
      "surface_form": "saṃnyasanāt",
      "lemma": "saṃnyasana",
      "grammar": "ablative neuter singular noun",
      "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
      "theme_lists": [],
      "surface_devanagari": "संन्यसनात्"
    },
    {
      "surface_form": "eva",
      "lemma": "eva",
      "grammar": "",
      "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
      "theme_lists": [],
      "surface_devanagari": "एव"
    },
    {
      "surface_form": "siddhim",
      "lemma": "siddhi",
      "grammar": "accusative feminine singular noun",
      "senses_attested_in_panel": [],
      "theme_lists": [],
      "surface_devanagari": "सिद्धिम्"
    },
    {
      "surface_form": "samadhigacchati",
      "lemma": "saṃ-√gam",
      "grammar": "present indicative 3rd person singular verb",
      "senses_attested_in_panel": [
        {
          "sense": "न प्राप्नोति",
          "school": "advaita",
          "weight": 0.8,
          "witnesses": [
            "shankara"
          ]
        },
        {
          "sense": "प्राप्नोति",
          "school": "bhakti",
          "weight": 0.8,
          "witnesses": [
            "sridhara"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "theme_lists": [],
      "surface_devanagari": "समधिगच्छति"
    }
  ],
  "intertextual_panel": [
    {
      "verse": "5.13",
      "type": "lemma-family resonance",
      "score": 0.9032,
      "feature_breakdown": {
        "cosine": 0.8532,
        "theme_graph": 0.0,
        "vocative": 0.0,
        "substring": 0.0,
        "lemma_overlap": 8.5217,
        "stem_prefix": 5.0
      }
    },
    {
      "verse": "6.1",
      "type": "lemma-family resonance",
      "score": 0.8992,
      "feature_breakdown": {
        "cosine": 0.8592,
        "theme_graph": 0.0,
        "vocative": 0.0,
        "substring": 0.0,
        "lemma_overlap": 8.1058,
        "stem_prefix": 4.0
      }
    },
    {
      "verse": "5.14",
      "type": "semantic neighbor",
      "score": 0.8946,
      "feature_breakdown": {
        "cosine": 0.8647,
        "theme_graph": 0.0,
        "vocative": 0.0,
        "substring": 0.0494,
        "lemma_overlap": 3.4329,
        "stem_prefix": 2.0
      }
    },
    {
      "verse": "3.18",
      "type": "cross-chapter thematic parallel",
      "score": 0.8914,
      "feature_breakdown": {
        "cosine": 0.8514,
        "theme_graph": 1.0,
        "vocative": 0.0,
        "substring": 0.0,
        "lemma_overlap": 3.952,
        "stem_prefix": 3.0
      }
    },
    {
      "verse": "4.41",
      "type": "shared-vocabulary echo",
      "score": 0.8906,
      "feature_breakdown": {
        "cosine": 0.8507,
        "theme_graph": 0.0,
        "vocative": 0.0,
        "substring": 0.0494,
        "lemma_overlap": 7.0395,
        "stem_prefix": 3.0
      }
    },
    {
      "verse": "18.3",
      "type": "semantic neighbor",
      "score": 0.886,
      "feature_breakdown": {
        "cosine": 0.856,
        "theme_graph": 0.0,
        "vocative": 0.0,
        "substring": 0.0,
        "lemma_overlap": 4.4992,
        "stem_prefix": 3.0
      }
    },
    {
      "verse": "6.4",
      "type": "shared-vocabulary echo",
      "score": 0.8858,
      "feature_breakdown": {
        "cosine": 0.8459,
        "theme_graph": 0.0,
        "vocative": 0.0,
        "substring": 0.0494,
        "lemma_overlap": 7.0395,
        "stem_prefix": 3.0
      }
    },
    {
      "verse": "13.23",
      "type": "shared-vocabulary echo",
      "score": 0.8846,
      "feature_breakdown": {
        "cosine": 0.8446,
        "theme_graph": 0.0,
        "vocative": 0.0,
        "substring": 0.0,
        "lemma_overlap": 7.5587,
        "stem_prefix": 4.0
      }
    }
  ],
  "doctrinal_projections": {
    "advaita": {
      "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)",
      "key_cross_references": [],
      "witness_passages": [
        "shankara_3.4",
        "anandgiri_3.4"
      ],
      "score": 0.5,
      "english_rendering": "By not commencing the prescribed actions — yajña (sacrifice), dāna (giving), tapas (austerity), whether performed in this birth or a prior one as antaḥkaraṇa-purifiers — the puruṣa (person) does not attain naiṣkarmya, which Śaṅkara defines precisely as jñāna-yoga-niṣṭhā (firm abidance in the niṣkriya-svarūpa, the intrinsically actionless nature of the ātman). Śaṅkara's bhāṣya argues the upāya-upeya (means-end) relationship is inviolable: karma removes accumulated pāpa (sin), purifies the sattva, and generates the citta-śuddhi without which jñāna cannot arise, just as the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad teaches yajña, dāna, and tapas as the very instruments of ātma-vidyā. Nor does mere saṃnyāsa — outer renunciation stripped of jñāna — deliver siddhi, because any scriptural sanction for directly entering saṃnyāsa (abhayaṃ sarvabhūtebhyo dattvā naiṣkarmyam ācaret) is addressed to the jñānin, not to the one who is jñāna-rahita (devoid of knowledge); the false renunciant bypasses the upāya and therefore cannot reach the upeya."
    },
    "viśiṣṭādvaita": {
      "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)",
      "key_cross_references": [],
      "witness_passages": [
        "ramanuja_3.4",
        "vedantadeshika_3.4"
      ],
      "score": 0.5,
      "english_rendering": "Rāmānuja's bhāṣya identifies two complementary errors this verse corrects: thinking that non-initiation of śāstrīya-karma (scripture-ordained action) delivers naiṣkarmya, and thinking that abandonment of already-commenced śāstrīya-karma delivers ātma-niṣṭhā. For Rāmānuja, the only karma that qualifies as the means to jñāna-yoga is karma performed anabhisaṃhita-phala (without fruit-desire) as Paramapuruṣa-ārādhana (worship of the Supreme Person); such karma dissolves the anādi-pāpa-saṃcaya (beginningless accumulated sin) that keeps the indriya (senses) turbulent and the antaḥkaraṇa unfit for sustained ātma-sākṣātkāra (self-realisation). Without this karma-jana (action-born) purification, the sammāhita (collected) and śānta (serene) inner state that alone enables ātma-niṣṭhā is duḥsampādya (extremely difficult to accomplish); neither avoidance nor abandonment of ordained action substitutes for this metabolic work."
    },
    "dvaita": {
      "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)",
      "key_cross_references": [],
      "witness_passages": [
        "madhva_3.4",
        "jayatirtha_3.4"
      ],
      "score": 0.5,
      "english_rendering": "Madhva's bhāṣya anchors both negations in his doctrine of jīva-svātantrya-abhāva (the jīva's complete dependence on Hari): mere non-performance of ordained actions — yuddha and the rest — does not yield naiṣkarmya, because mokṣa requires tattva-jñāna (knowledge of Hari's supremacy) as its instrumental cause, not behavioural inaction. The deeper argument in the bhāṣya is structural: the jīva always inhabits a body, gross or subtle, and the ananta-karma (endless actions) from numberless prior births continue to mature and produce embodiment — as the Brahma-purāṇa confirms, the saṃsāra-cakra is anādi (beginningless) and can be exited only by knowing the Param-deva (Supreme God), not by stopping present action. Saṃnyāsa as mere kāmya-karma-parityāga (abandonment of desire-motivated action) without the antaḥkaraṇa-śuddhi that desireless action produces is equally incapable: the Bhāgavata-purāṇa confirms that karmabhiḥ śuddha-sattvasya vairāgyaṃ jāyate hṛdi — vairāgya (dispassion) and then jñāna arise from purified action, not from its cessation."
    },
    "śuddhādvaita": {
      "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)",
      "key_cross_references": [],
      "witness_passages": [
        "vallabha_3.4"
      ],
      "score": 0.5,
      "english_rendering": "Vallabha's Subodhinī is compressed but precise: it reads the verse as ratifying the Puṣṭi-mārga's established principle from the Āptabhāṣya that karma, jñāna, and bhakti each purify the antaḥkaraṇa by saṃyoga-pṛthaktva-nyāya (the principle of connection and separation), so all three are required at their respective adhikāra (eligibility) levels — and for the karma-adhikārī, no substitute exists. The first hemistich closes the escape of inaction: the karma-adhikārī who refuses ordained action cannot reach naiṣkarmya-mokṣa-siddhi because the antaḥkaraṇa-śodhana (purification of the inner organ) belongs to karma's domain for this category of sādhaka. The second hemistich closes the escape of formal saṃnyāsa: even a jīvanmukta (one liberated while alive) continues to perform action while in the body — dehavattvena karma-karaṇa-darśanāt — so the Puṣṭi-mārga holds that action in the world is never abandoned but transfigured into Kṛṣṇa's own prasāda-movement."
    },
    "bhakti": {
      "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)",
      "key_cross_references": [],
      "witness_passages": [
        "sridhara_3.4"
      ],
      "score": 0.5,
      "english_rendering": "*Citta-śuddhi* (mind-purification) is the governing purpose behind *karma*: *varṇāśramocitāni karmāṇi kartavyāni* — actions proper to one's station and stage must be performed until *jñāna* arises — *sampyak citta-śuddhyarthaṃ jñānot-patter yantam*. Without this, *citta-śuddhi* is absent, and *jñāna* simply does not arise. The mūla's first hemistich states the case directly: *karmaṇām anārambhād ananūṣṭhānān naiṣkarmyaṃ jñānaṃ nāśnute nāpnoti* — by non-commencement, by non-performance of *karma*, a person does not attain *naiṣkarmya*. Then Śrīdhara pre-empts the objection drawn from the śruti passage *evam eva pravrajino lokam īpsantaḥ pravrajanti*, which might seem to license immediate *saṃnyāsa* as an independent path to *mokṣa*. His reply: *na ca citta-śuddhiṃ vinā kṛtāt saṃnyasanād eva jñāna-śūnyāt siddhiṃ mokṣaṃ samadhigacchati prāpnoti* — renunciation performed without *citta-śuddhi*, empty of *jñāna*, cannot deliver *siddhi*. *Saṃnyāsa* that liberates is not a mechanical bypass of inner preparation; it is precisely the *saṃnyāsa* that emerges from a purified *antaḥkaraṇa*."
    },
    "advaita-bhakti": {
      "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)",
      "key_cross_references": [],
      "witness_passages": [
        "madhusudan_3.4"
      ],
      "score": 0.5,
      "english_rendering": "Madhusūdana Sarasvatī's bhāṣya cites the Bṛhadāraṇyaka passage (tamevaṃ vedānuvacana-yajña-dānā-tapasā brāhmaṇā vividīṣanti) to establish that śruti itself ordains karma as the instrument for ātma-jñāna-sādhana: without the citta-śuddhi karma produces, the sādhaka is bahirmukha (outward-facing) and constitutionally incapable of jñāna-yoga-niṣṭhā. On the saṃnyāsa side, Madhusūdana adds his characteristic insistence that saṃnyāsa cannot become samyak-phala-paryavasāyin (fully fruit-bearing) unless it is grounded in karma-janita-citta-śuddhi (purity born of action); saṃnyāsa born only of autsukyamātra (mere eagerness) is an empty gesture — na phala-paryavasāyī, says the bhāṣya. The synthesis is Madhusūdana's own: Kṛṣṇa-bhakti animates the entire sequence as its telos — karma clears the field, bhakti owns it — so the path is one of progressive interiorisation rather than abrupt discontinuity."
    }
  },
  "prosodic_information": {
    "meter": "anuṣṭubh",
    "meter_shift_from_previous": false,
    "meter_shift_to_next": true,
    "pragmatic_context": {
      "vocative": "",
      "preceding_question": "",
      "following_response": ""
    }
  },
  "theme_list_memberships": [],
  "audit_trail": {
    "substrate_version": "v2.6-frozen",
    "fitted_weights": {
      "a": 1.0,
      "b": 0.01,
      "e_v": 0.005,
      "z": 0.2,
      "h": 0.0,
      "th": 0.01
    },
    "corpus_provenance": {
      "mūla": "Belvalkar critical edition (BORI 1947), via Ambuda multi-witness",
      "panel_witnesses": [
        "bg-mula",
        "bg-shankara",
        "bg-ramanuja",
        "bg-madhva",
        "bg-vedantadeshika",
        "bg-vallabha",
        "bg-jayatirtha",
        "bg-anandgiri",
        "bg-sridhara",
        "bg-madhusudan"
      ]
    },
    "extraction_date": "2026-04-21",
    "score_methodology_documented_at": "Paper 1, Section II.B (substrate architecture and feature definitions)",
    "word_by_word_parser": "ByT5-Sanskrit-multitask (Nehrdich/Hellwig/Keutzer EMNLP 2024)",
    "post_generation_repairs": [
      {
        "date": "2026-05-03",
        "fix": "verb-lemma-misidentification (sandhi'd compound → prefix-√root canonical)",
        "scope": "word_by_word[].lemma",
        "loci": [
          "samadhigacchati: samadhigam -> saṃ-√gam"
        ]
      },
      {
        "date": "2026-05-03",
        "fix": "verb-lemma-misidentification (broader heuristic: prefix-√root canonical for all verb-tagged tokens)",
        "scope": "word_by_word[].lemma",
        "loci": [
          "aśnute: aś -> √aś"
        ]
      }
    ]
  },
  "so_what_questions": [
    "Every school anchors naiṣkarmya in citta-śuddhi rather than behavioural cessation — but they name different mechanisms (Śaṅkara: vicāra after purification; Rāmānuja: Bhagavān-ārādhana-karma; Madhva: Hari's anugraha following desireless action; Vallabha: Kṛṣṇa's prasāda; Śrīdhara: karma up to jñāna; Madhusūdana: karma + bhakti together). Are these genuinely different paths or different descriptions of a single interior movement?",
    "Śaṅkara invokes the upāya-upeya (means-end) principle to argue that bypassing karma bypasses the only available means to naiṣkarmya. Does this logic imply that karma-yoga is universally mandatory, or only for those who lack the rare direct adhikāra (qualification) for jñāna-niṣṭhā without it?",
    "Rāmānuja specifies śāstrīya-karma (ordained action) as the purifier — not any activity, but scripture-ordained service oriented to Bhagavān. How does this specification change the practical meaning of 'do not stop acting'? Does it license withdrawing from non-ordained professional or social activity?",
    "Madhva's structural argument — that the jīva always inhabits some body, so past karma is always maturing — implies that inaction cannot stop the karmic process, only desireless action can metabolise it. Does this framework make mokṣa categorically impossible without Hari's direct anugraha (grace), regardless of one's effort?",
    "Vallabha's bhāṣya is the most compressed in the payload, yet his framework is the most radical: liberation belongs entirely to Kṛṣṇa's prasāda, not to any technique. Does the brevity of his comment signal that the verse is less central to Puṣṭi-mārga, or that its teaching is absorbed so completely into the prasāda-framework that it needs no elaboration?",
    "Śrīdhara protects two niṣṭhās from counterfeits: do not mimic jñāna-niṣṭhā by stopping karma, and do not mimic saṃnyāsa-siddhi by adopting outer renunciant form. Which of these counterfeits is more dangerous from the standpoint of spiritual self-deception, and why might the verse address them in this order?",
    "All six commentators require inner transformation before renunciation bears fruit — this is the only point of consensus. What does this cross-school consensus imply about the relationship between outer religious form (āśrama, ritual, vow) and inner readiness? Can a tradition enforce this sequence institutionally, or is it inherently a matter of individual discernment?"
  ],
  "everyday_applications": {
    "advaita": "When the temptation arises to declare your engagement finished — to stop producing, stop showing up, stop performing the demanding work that currently structures your days — Śaṅkara's reading asks a prior question: has the antaḥkaraṇa been sufficiently purified that genuine jñāna-niṣṭhā is actually available, or is the withdrawal a flight from the discomfort of continued purification? The test is not outer stillness but inner observation: if desire, anxiety, and the sense of doership are still operative below the surface, the cessation mimics naiṣkarmya without producing it, and the correct move is to return to the work until the instrument is genuinely ready.",
    "viśiṣṭādvaita": "Rāmānuja's reading applies directly to anyone convinced that a current demanding role — a draining job, a difficult relationship, an unglamorous duty — is spiritually inferior to a cleaner, quieter field. The verse says the anādi-pāpa-saṃcaya (accumulated sin from beginningless time) cannot be bypassed by stepping outside the conditioning; it must be metabolised through action. The Viśiṣṭādvaita instruction is to reframe the current duty as Paramapuruṣa-kainkarya (service to the Lord who is present in the work) rather than abandoning it in search of a purer field — because siddhi comes through full engagement correctly oriented, not through escape.",
    "dvaita": "Madhva's bhāṣya is a corrective to a specific pattern: the belief that stepping out of professional or social responsibility and formally adopting a renunciant identity is sufficient for spiritual progress. His argument is that past karma continues to mature regardless of present posture — the jīva cannot outrun accumulated karma by stopping. What actually metabolises it is niṣkāma-karma (desireless action) whose antaḥkaraṇa-śuddhi eventually produces the vairāgya and jñāna that Hari confirms with anugraha; the shortcut of premature formal renunciation is not renunciation but another expression of the very aversion it claims to transcend.",
    "śuddhādvaita": "Vallabha's reading removes the strategic mind from the equation: when you find yourself calculating whether action or non-action will more efficiently advance your liberation, the Puṣṭi-mārga response is to recognise that calculation itself as the obstacle. Neither action nor its cessation is within your productive power to convert into mokṣa — that is Kṛṣṇa's prasāda alone. The everyday instruction is to act fully within the given structure of your life as a form of receiving what Kṛṣṇa has already arranged — keeping the quality of the action bright and full — while releasing the meta-project of managing your own liberation through strategic choice between doing and not-doing.",
    "bhakti": "Śrīdhara's dual warning maps onto a recognisable pattern: the person who, having encountered teachings on non-attachment, uses them as permission to disengage from responsibilities (calling it vairāgya while practising avoidance), and the person who adopts a formal spiritual identity — meditator, renunciant, practitioner — without the antaḥkaraṇa-śuddhi that alone gives it substance. The application from the bhāṣya is diagnostic: assess the inner instrument honestly; if agitation, attachment, and reactivity persist, the prescribed path is varṇāśrama-ucita-karma performed with as much śuddhi (purity) as one can manage — not the premature adoption of the outer forms of the next stage.",
    "advaita-bhakti": "Madhusūdana's synthesis identifies the single operative test: not outer activity-level but inner orientation. If you are acting with bhagavad-arpaṇa-buddhi (genuine offering of action and fruit to Bhagavān — not as a technique but as a real relinquishment of outcome), then karma is performing its citta-śuddhi function regardless of how intense the outer engagement is. If you are sitting still without that orientation, the stillness produces nothing. The everyday instruction is therefore to establish the offering-orientation first and adjust outer activity-level only secondarily — and only when karma-janita-citta-śuddhi has genuinely matured, not when mere preference for less effort suggests it has."
  },
  "primary_meaning": "A person does not reach the actionless state by simply refusing to act, nor does mere renunciation bring fulfillment, because the inner purification that makes knowledge possible comes only through right action first."
}