{ "verse_id": "5.4", "mūla": { "devanāgarī": "सांख्य-योगौ पृथग् बालाः प्रवदन्ति न पण्डिताः | एकम् अप्य् आस्थितः सम्यग् उभयोर् विन्दते फलम्", "iast": "sāṃkhya-yogau pṛthag bālāḥ pravadanti na paṇḍitāḥ | ekam apy āsthitaḥ samyag ubhayor vindate phalam", "chapter_position": "Chapter 5 (Karma-Sannyāsa-Yoga (The Yoga of Renunciation)), verse 4", "speaker": "Krishna", "addressed_to": "Arjuna" }, "word_by_word": [ { "surface_form": "sāṃkhya", "lemma": "sāṃkhya", "grammar": "compound (compound member)", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "सांख्य" }, { "surface_form": "yogau", "lemma": "yoga", "grammar": "accusative masculine dual noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [ { "sense": "फलभेदात् पृथग्भूतौ ये प्रवदन्ति ते बालाः अनिष्पन्नज्ञानाः न पण्डिताः न तु कृत्स्नविदः", "school": "viśiṣṭādvaita", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "ramanuja" ] } ], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "योगौ" }, { "surface_form": "pṛthak", "lemma": "pṛthak", "grammar": "", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "पृथक्" }, { "surface_form": "bālāḥ", "lemma": "bāla", "grammar": "nominative masculine plural noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [ { "sense": "प्रवदन्ति न पण्डिताः", "school": "advaita", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "shankara" ] }, { "sense": "अनिष्पन्नज्ञानाः न पण्डिताः न तु कृत्स्नविदः", "school": "viśiṣṭādvaita", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "ramanuja" ] }, { "sense": "शास्त्रार्थज्ञानविवेकशून्याः प्रवदन्ति न पण्डिताः", "school": "advaita-bhakti", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "madhusudan" ] } ], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "बालाः" }, { "surface_form": "pravadanti", "lemma": "pra-√vad", "grammar": "present indicative 3rd person plural verb", "senses_attested_in_panel": [ { "sense": "न पण्डिताः", "school": "advaita", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "shankara" ] }, { "sense": "ते बालाः अनिष्पन्नज्ञानाः न पण्डिताः न तु कृत्स्नविदः", "school": "viśiṣṭādvaita", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "ramanuja", "vedantadeshika" ] }, { "sense": "नतु पण्डिताः", "school": "bhakti", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "sridhara" ] }, { "sense": "न पण्डिताः", "school": "advaita-bhakti", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "madhusudan" ] } ], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "प्रवदन्ति" }, { "surface_form": "na", "lemma": "na", "grammar": "", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "न" }, { "surface_form": "paṇḍitāḥ", "lemma": "paṇḍita", "grammar": "nominative masculine plural noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [ { "sense": "। पण्डितास्तु ज्ञानिन एकं फलम् अविरुद्धम् इच्छन्ति। कथम् एकमपि सांख्ययोगयोः सम्यक् आस्थितः सम्यगनुष्ठितवान् इत्यर्थः उभय", "school": "advaita", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "shankara" ] }, { "sense": "न तु कृत्स्नविदः", "school": "viśiṣṭādvaita", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "ramanuja", "vedantadeshika" ] }, { "sense": "। तत्र हेतुः अनयोरेकमपि सम्यगास्थित आश्रितः सन्नुभयोरपि फलं प्राप्नोति। तथाहि कर्मयोगं सम्यगनुतिष्ठन् शुद्धचित्तः सन् ज्", "school": "bhakti", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "sridhara" ] }, { "sense": "। किं तर्हि पण्डितानां मतम्। उच्यते एकमपि संन्यासकर्मणोर्मध्ये सम्यगास्थितः स्वाधिकारानुरूपेण सम्यग्यथाशास्त्रं कृतवान्स", "school": "advaita-bhakti", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "madhusudan" ] } ], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "पण्डिताः" }, { "surface_form": "ekam", "lemma": "eka", "grammar": "accusative masculine singular noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "एकम्" }, { "surface_form": "api", "lemma": "api", "grammar": "", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "अपि" }, { "surface_form": "āsthitaḥ", "lemma": "ā-√sthā", "grammar": "nominative masculine singular participle noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [ { "sense": "सम्यगनुष्ठितवान् इत्यर्थः उभयोः विन्दते फलम्", "school": "advaita", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "shankara" ] }, { "sense": "तद् एव फलं लभते।एतद् एव विवृणोति", "school": "viśiṣṭādvaita", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "ramanuja" ] } ], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "आस्थितः" }, { "surface_form": "samyak", "lemma": "samyak", "grammar": "", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "सम्यक्" }, { "surface_form": "ubhayoḥ", "lemma": "ubhaya", "grammar": "genitive masculine dual noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "उभयोः" }, { "surface_form": "vindate", "lemma": "√vid", "grammar": "present indicative 3rd person singular verb", "senses_attested_in_panel": [ { "sense": "फलम्। उभयोः तदेव हि निःश्रेयसं फलम् अतः न फले विरोधः अस्ति।।ननु संन्यासकर्मयोगशब्देन प्रस्तुत्य सांख्ययोगयोः फलैकत्वं क", "school": "advaita", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "shankara" ] } ], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "विन्दते" }, { "surface_form": "phalam", "lemma": "phala", "grammar": "accusative neuter singular noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "फलम्" } ], "intertextual_panel": [ { "verse": "5.5", "type": "next-verse continuation", "score": 0.8611, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8418, "theme_graph": 1.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0467, "lemma_overlap": 0.0, "stem_prefix": 0.0 } }, { "verse": "5.2", "type": "thematic-cluster continuation", "score": 0.8592, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8292, "theme_graph": 3.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 0.0, "stem_prefix": 0.0 } }, { "verse": "18.12", "type": "long-distance thematic echo", "score": 0.8448, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8348, "theme_graph": 1.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 0.0, "stem_prefix": 0.0 } }, { "verse": "13.24", "type": "long-distance thematic echo", "score": 0.844, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8247, "theme_graph": 1.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0467, "lemma_overlap": 0.0, "stem_prefix": 0.0 } }, { "verse": "14.23", "type": "thematic-similarity", "score": 0.8403, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8403, "theme_graph": 0.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 0.0, "stem_prefix": 0.0 } }, { "verse": "18.7", "type": "long-distance thematic echo", "score": 0.8398, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8298, "theme_graph": 1.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 0.0, "stem_prefix": 0.0 } }, { "verse": "6.1", "type": "cross-chapter thematic parallel", "score": 0.8383, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8283, "theme_graph": 1.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 0.0, "stem_prefix": 0.0 } }, { "verse": "2.51", "type": "thematic-similarity", "score": 0.8382, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8382, "theme_graph": 0.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 0.0, "stem_prefix": 0.0 } } ], "doctrinal_projections": { "advaita": { "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)", "key_cross_references": [], "witness_passages": [ "shankara_5.4", "anandgiri_5.4" ], "score": 0.5, "english_rendering": "Only the unlearned (bālāḥ) declare sāṅkhya and yoga as bearing separate, contrary fruits — the wise know both paths lead to the single fruit of liberation (niḥśreyasa). Śaṅkara reads 'sāṅkhya' as renunciation wedded to jñāna and 'yoga' as niṣkāma-karma wedded to equanimity (samabuddhi); they differ in instrument, not in destination. One who practises either with full integrity (samyag āsthitaḥ) attains the fruit of both, because there is no real opposition in the result (na fale virodhaḥ asti).", "divergence_note": "Śaṅkara: 'ubhayoḥ tad eva niḥśreyasaṃ phalam ataḥ na phale virodhaḥ asti' — the highest good is the one fruit of both." }, "viśiṣṭādvaita": { "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)", "key_cross_references": [], "witness_passages": [ "ramanuja_5.4", "vedantadeshika_5.4" ], "score": 0.5, "english_rendering": "Those who declare jñāna-yoga and karma-yoga separate on account of distinct fruits are anipanna-jñānāḥ — persons in whom knowledge has not yet ripened. Rāmānuja insists karma-yoga is precisely the sādhana that produces jñāna-yoga; jñāna-yoga in turn produces ātmāvalokana (direct vision of the self). Since both share the single fruit of ātmāvalokana, one who is correctly established in either one obtains that very fruit.", "divergence_note": "Rāmānuja: 'karmayogo jñānayogam eva sādhayati jñānayogas tv eka ātmāvalokanaṃ sādhayati iti tayoḥ phalabhedena pṛthaktvaṃ vadanto na paṇḍitāḥ.'" }, "dvaita": { "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)", "key_cross_references": [], "witness_passages": [ "madhva_5.4", "jayatirtha_5.4" ], "score": 0.5, "english_rendering": "Madhva anchors the unity in the concept of antaraṅgatā: renunciation (sannyāsa) is the inner limb (antaraṅga) of jñāna, not its rival, and yoga is similarly its inner limb — both are oriented toward Hari and therefore non-opposed. Those who posit separate goals speak as bālāḥ, because they misread Bhāgavata teaching that no path attains its own result independently of Hari's grace. The polemical edge is against Mīmāṃsakas who elevate ritual as self-sufficient.", "divergence_note": "Madhva: 'ubhayorapi antaraṅgatvenāvirodhaḥ' — by virtue of each being the inner limb of the other, there is no opposition." }, "śuddhādvaita": { "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)", "key_cross_references": [], "witness_passages": [ "vallabha_5.4" ], "score": 0.5, "english_rendering": "Vallabha reframes the apparent difference between sāṅkhya (which renounces action) and yoga (which undertakes it) as a surface difference within one paramārtha: both, practised with renunciation of the pairs-of-opposites (dvandva-sannyāsa), yield the single supreme human aim (paramapuruṣārtha). The one correctly established in either — or in both as a unified eka-artha — attains the fruit of both through Bhagavān's own sanction. Vallabha's distinctive note is that this unity is ultimately Kṛṣṇa's own view (bhagavan-matam), not merely a philosophical concession.", "divergence_note": "Vallabha: 'svakarmāṇi dvandvasannyāsapūrvakaṃ karaṇam artham ekam apy āsthita ubhayoḥ phalaṃ vindatīti' — action performed with prior renunciation of opposites is the unifying key." }, "bhakti": { "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)", "key_cross_references": [], "witness_passages": [ "sridhara_5.4" ], "score": 0.5, "english_rendering": "Śrīdhara reads 'sāṅkhya' as pointing to jñāna-niṣṭhā and thereby to its aṅga (limb), sannyāsa; 'yoga' as karma-yoga, its complement in a sequential-and-simultaneous (krama-samuccaya) relationship. The unlearned who ask 'which is superior?' reveal themselves as ajñāni by treating the two as autonomous alternatives. The paṇḍita knows that perfecting karma-yoga purifies the citta and yields kaivalya through the gateway of jñāna; perfecting sannyāsa likewise reaches the same kaivalya through karma-yoga's prior contribution.", "divergence_note": "Śrīdhara: 'karmayogaṃ samyag anutiṣṭhan śuddha-cittaḥ san jñānadvārā yad ubhayoḥ phalaṃ kaivalyaṃ vindati' — karma-yoga through purified mind reaches kaivalya via jñāna." }, "advaita-bhakti": { "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)", "key_cross_references": [], "witness_passages": [ "madhusudan_5.4" ], "score": 0.5, "english_rendering": "Madhusūdana begins from an apparent aporia: how can karma and its abandonment share a result when they are svarūpa-viruddha (opposed in their very nature)? His resolution: 'sāṅkhya' names sannyāsa because it is the inner instrument (antaraṅga-sādhana) of jñāna, carrying samyag-ātma-buddhi; 'yoga' is niṣkāma-karma as previously defined. Both reach the one niḥśreyasa through the intermediary of jñānotpatti; the apparent opposition dissolves because the identity is at the level of fruit, not of form. Those who cite structural contradiction to deny unity are śāstrārtha-jñāna-viveka-śūnya — devoid of discriminative understanding of scripture's intent.", "divergence_note": "Madhusūdana: 'ekam api sannyāsakarmaṇor madhye samyag āsthitaḥ ubhayor vindate phalaṃ jñānotpattidvāreṇa niḥśreyasam ekam eva' — one result alone through the door of jñāna's arising." } }, "prosodic_information": { "meter": "anuṣṭubh", "meter_shift_from_previous": false, "meter_shift_to_next": false, "pragmatic_context": { "vocative": "", "preceding_question": "", "following_response": "" } }, "theme_list_memberships": [ { "list": "कर्मसंन्यास", "role": "supporting", "other_verses_in_list": [ "5.2" ] }, { "list": "संन्यास", "role": "supporting", "other_verses_in_list": [ "1.1", "5.1", "5.2", "5.3", "5.6", "6.1", "6.2", "6.4", "9.28", "18.1", "18.2", "18.7", "18.12", "18.49" ] }, { "list": "सांख्य", "role": "supporting", "other_verses_in_list": [ "2.39", "3.3", "5.5", "13.24" ] }, { "list": "सांख्य-योग", "role": "supporting", "other_verses_in_list": [ "5.2" ] } ], "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", "word_by_word_parser": "ByT5-Sanskrit-multitask (Nehrdich/Hellwig/Keutzer EMNLP 2024)", "post_generation_repairs": [ { "date": "2026-05-03", "fix": "verb-lemma-misidentification (broader heuristic: prefix-√root canonical for all verb-tagged tokens)", "scope": "word_by_word[].lemma", "loci": [ "pravadanti: pravad -> pra-√vad", "āsthitaḥ: āsthā -> ā-√sthā", "vindate: vid -> √vid" ] } ] }, "so_what_questions": [ "If sāṅkhya and yoga both lead to the same liberation, what practical criterion should a seeker use to choose between them — capacity, temperament, or stage of life?", "The verse hinges on 'samyag āsthitaḥ' (correctly established). What makes practice 'correct' — and who adjudicates correctness across the six schools represented here?", "Madhva's Dvaita insists both paths are only effective as antaraṅga (inner limb) to Hari; does this make unity a theological claim rather than a philosophical one, and does that matter?", "Śaṅkara folds sannyāsa and karma-yoga into sāṅkhya and yoga by adding 'jñāna-sambuddhi' and 'samā-buddhi' qualifiers. Is this a genuine reading of the mūla or a doctrinal recasting?", "Rāmānuja sequences the paths (karma-yoga produces jñāna-yoga produces ātmāvalokana), while Śaṅkara treats the unity as co-terminal. Which model better accounts for the Gītā's overall arc through chapters 3–6?", "The verse condemns the 'bāla' position. Is there a modern academic parallel — treating comparative religion as if traditions are incommensurable frameworks with irreconcilable outcomes?", "Vallabha's resolution rests on dvandva-sannyāsa as the precondition. If the practitioner has not yet achieved renunciation of pairs-of-opposites, does the unity of fruit remain inaccessible — or does Puṣṭi-grace bridge the gap?" ], "everyday_applications": { "advaita": "A practitioner torn between silent meditation (jñāna-sādhana) and active service can stop treating the choice as zero-sum. Śaṅkara's point is that whichever path is pursued with complete, undeceived commitment (samyag āsthitaḥ) — without secret attachment to the fruits of the other — delivers the single result. The practical instruction: choose the path appropriate to one's adhikāra and pursue it without hedging.", "viśiṣṭādvaita": "A devotee anxious that ritual duty is 'lower' than contemplative practice can trust Rāmānuja's sequential logic: karma-yoga done as Bhagavān's kainkarya (service) is already building the inner ground from which ātmāvalokana arises. No jump from karma to jñāna is required; karma done correctly becomes jñāna's own vehicle. Daily worship and work are not detours — they are the path.", "dvaita": "For a Madhva practitioner, the application is orienting every act — study, service, pūjā — toward Hari as the sole agent and recipient. The unity of paths is not an abstract philosophical point but a practical check: if any action is done for self-consolidation rather than as offering to Hari, it steps outside both sāṅkhya and yoga alike and yields neither fruit.", "śuddhādvaita": "Vallabha's application is the daily practice of dvandva-sannyāsa — consciously releasing the pull of preference (heat/cold, praise/blame, success/failure) before and during action, not after. This is not ascetic withdrawal but a quality of inner gesture that can accompany any activity. The practitioner does not need to leave household life; they need to act within it without being gripped by its opposites.", "bhakti": "Śrīdhara's framing offers a sequence for ordinary seekers: begin with karma-yoga (disciplined action, duty without hoarding results), allow it to purify the citta, and trust that jñāna will arise from that purification rather than needing to be separately cultivated. The practical corollary: asking 'am I a karma-yogī or a jñānī?' is itself a symptom of the bāla-mind. Keep acting with purity; the question resolves itself.", "advaita-bhakti": "Madhusūdana's synthesis speaks to practitioners who feel genuinely split between intellectual study (vedānta-vicāra) and devotional practice (bhakti-sādhana). His point: both function as antaraṅga-sādhana for the arising of jñāna, which is the actual proximate cause of liberation. The everyday instruction is to stop experiencing the split as a problem of identity and instead ask: which of these, right now, is more honestly attuned to your adhikāra? That sincerity is samyag āsthitaḥ." }, "primary_meaning": "Only the unlearned call Sāṃkhya and yoga separate paths; the wise know that one who practices either fully wins the fruit of both." }