Sanskrit
साङ्ख्ययोगौ पृथग्बालाः प्रवदन्ति न पण्डिताः । एकमप्यास्थितः सम्यगुभयोर्विन्दते फलम् ॥
sāṅkhyayogau pṛthag bālāḥ pravadanti na paṇḍitāḥ ekam apy āsthitaḥ samyag ubhayor vindate phalam
Translation
Children, not sages, speak of the Sânkhya and the Yoga as different; he who is duly established in one obtaineth the fruits of both.
Annie Besant · The Bhagavad-Gita, translated by Annie Besant (4th ed., 1922) — Wikisource · Public Domain
Explanation
Having redefined renunciation in verse 3, Krishna states the chapter’s unification thesis outright: treating Sankhya (the path of knowledge) and Yoga (the path of action) as different is the mark of the immature, not the wise. Whoever is genuinely established in either one obtains the result of both — which follows directly from the redefinition just given, since real renunciation already contains the non-attachment that real yoga also requires. This is argument, not assertion. The word for those who split the paths is bāla, “child” — not stupid, but not yet grown into the seeing. The figure on the chapter page lays the two columns side by side precisely to show they terminate at one place (BG 5.5).
Study deeper
Word by word
- sāṅkhyayogau pṛthag bālāḥसाङ्ख्ययोगौ पृथग् बालाः
- the childish say Sāṅkhya and Yoga are separate (sāṅkhya-yogau + pṛthak + bālāḥ)
- pravadanti na paṇḍitāḥप्रवदन्ति न पण्डिताः
- not the wise (pravadanti + na + paṇḍitāḥ)
- ekam apy āsthitaḥ samyagएकं अप्य् आस्थितः संयग्
- one who is rightly established even in one (ekam + api + āsthitaḥ + samyak)
- ubhayor vindate phalamउभयोः विन्दते फलं
- gains the fruit of both (ubhayoḥ + vindate + phalam)
Commentary
Site Commentary
Krishna’s chosen contrast for anyone who treats Sankhya and Yoga as different paths isn’t “some scholars disagree” — it’s bālāḥ against paṇḍitāḥ, children against the wise. That’s an unusually blunt way to characterize a position he disagrees with, framing the error as immaturity rather than a defensible alternate reading. The bluntness is doing rhetorical work: it forecloses the possibility that this is a reasonable difference of opinion before the argument for unity has even been given.
Original commentary written for this site · © Amit Singh — original commentary
Concepts
Apply this verse
Lessons
Personal
- When you catch yourself treating two paths toward the same goal as fundamentally opposed, consider that the sense of conflict might be more about how you framed the choice than about anything actually incompatible between them.
Professional
- When two engineering camps insist their approaches are incompatible, check whether the disagreement is real or a symptom of an under-examined framing — sometimes both camps are already producing the outcome they're fighting about.
Family & Social
- If you and a family member insist your very different approaches to a shared goal can't both be right, consider that the apparent conflict may be more about framing than substance — check before assuming real disagreement.
Ask yourself
A few ways to take this verse past reading. Ticks and the note stay in this browser.