Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 5, Verse 4: Krishna to Arjuna — Karma-Sannyāsa-Yoga
Only the unlearned call Sāṃkhya and yoga separate paths; the wise know that one who practices either fully wins the fruit of both.
Bhāṣyakāra purports
- Śaṅkaraadvaita
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: Śaṅkara: 'ubhayoḥ tad eva niḥśreyasaṃ phalam ataḥ na phale virodhaḥ asti' — the highest good is the one fruit of both.
- Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita
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: Rāmānuja: 'karmayogo jñānayogam eva sādhayati jñānayogas tv eka ātmāvalokanaṃ sādhayati iti tayoḥ phalabhedena pṛthaktvaṃ vadanto na paṇḍitāḥ.'
- Madhvadvaita
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: Madhva: 'ubhayorapi antaraṅgatvenāvirodhaḥ' — by virtue of each being the inner limb of the other, there is no opposition.
- Vallabhaśuddhādvaita
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: Vallabha: 'svakarmāṇi dvandvasannyāsapūrvakaṃ karaṇam artham ekam apy āsthita ubhayoḥ phalaṃ vindatīti' — action performed with prior renunciation of opposites is the unifying key.
- Śrīdharabhakti
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: Śrīdhara: 'karmayogaṃ samyag anutiṣṭhan śuddha-cittaḥ san jñānadvārā yad ubhayoḥ phalaṃ kaivalyaṃ vindati' — karma-yoga through purified mind reaches kaivalya via jñāna.
- Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti
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: Madhusūdana: 'ekam api sannyāsakarmaṇor madhye samyag āsthitaḥ ubhayor vindate phalaṃ jñānotpattidvāreṇa niḥśreyasam ekam eva' — one result alone through the door of jñāna's arising.