The third chapter teaches karma-yoga; this chapter expounds that which is concerned with it. If one is satisfied by accidental gain, this is renunciation (śramaṇa) — see 4.22 and so on. Otherwise, ‘renounce through action’ (4.15) — that is also karma-yoga. Because Krishna draws the whole world by regulation, it is said: ‘You draw (yathā karṣasi), O Lord of gods, by regulating the entire universe.’ Hence the sages say, ‘O Kaurma, the brahminical teachers call you Krishna, the expounder of Brahman.’ The meaning of the word sannyāsa will be declared by the Lord himself. The question here is: if sannyāsa were superior, then it would be proper to fight against one who opposes sannyāsa.

This is not sannyāsa that consists merely in change of ashrama. From ‘abandoning the pairs of opposites is called sannyāsa,’ and ‘renunciation (tyāga) is myself the highest worship,’ it is taught: those duties or those austerities are only renounced as to their external exercises. True sannyāsa is the fourth — that which is called niṣkriya (inactive), in accordance with dharma. There is no higher dharma in the world than that. One who becomes a bhakta but does not attain that is not righteous as a householder. The state of attachmentless devotion (mad-bhakti) is declared to be the qualification for renunciation. Whatever qualification exists, even a brahmachārī may take to wandering (pravrajya), according to the Nārada. ‘Only by brahmacharya one should take to pravrajya…’ If one by mere detachment gives up, then— (see cited passages). In sannyāsa the affection for the fourth state is supremely praised. Those who do not have that qualification certainly are not to be said to have performed sannyāsa. Therefore ashrama is not here meant by the word sannyāsa.

The meaning of the word sannyāsa is indicated thus: ‘It should be known’ — the term recalls that the renunciation is beneficial for supreme good. ‘It should be known’ to instruct the renunciation’s excellence.

Sannyāsa is spoken of as interior knowledge (jñāna-antaraṅgatva); one cannot grasp its essence by external parts — see Part 5.11.3, etc. Therefore how can one say ‘thus is It’? Hence he says ‘sāṅkhya-yoga’ — the two are not opposed, being both interior in their core. The notion that Agni, stupefied by smoke, does not recognize his own sphere is like the illustration: ‘Do not be bewildered by funeral rites and such’ — these are actions relating to desire. Those who assert otherwise are children.

Regarding ‘not even one’ (ekam api) the meaning is: that which the sāṅkhyas attain. By the yogīs also, through jñāna, the fruit of knowledge is obtained — this is the sense.

Thereafter: ‘Yoga is superior to renunciation’ — yet it was said ‘renunciation is…’ Because without yoga one does not obtain the fruit of liberation; from merely overcoming desire and so on one attains only suffering, and that alone is the fruit of renunciation. The other fruits are meager or nonexistent. Therefore the text says: ‘That which does not yield the fruit of liberation is not fruit’ (in the Padma); what is fit for great fruit cannot have a small result — as a handful of rice from a lotus-stalk cannot be the great fruit. The great fruit together with being fit for yoga is sannyāsa. ‘The sage is called a sannyāsī’ — thus: ‘He in the world is called muni who is free from desire and anger.’

This is what is taught: ‘Yoga-yuktaḥ’ denotes one who is united to yoga. The Lord is the soul of all beings — the Supreme God. ‘That which he attains…’ — He is the soul of beings, the near witness and the efficient cause; He is the soul of all beings.

The two verses again clarify sannyāsa.

The two verses again clarify sannyāsa.

‘By action united with yoga one is not defiled’ — thus ‘in Brahman.’ Repeated exposition of the fruit serves to remove any doubt about the practice and the regulation as means.

Thus: ‘Thus one should act’ — therefore ‘by the body’ (kāyena) is said.

'Yukta' is said to indicate the control of the faculties by proper means and the appropriate result: 'yukta'—one united with yoga is 'yogayukta' (joined to yoga).

Again, to clarify the meaning of sannyāsa: it means 'sarva-karmāṇī'—renunciation of all actions; and 'manas' as qualifier indicates the abandonment of egoistic identification (abhimāna) in the mind.

'And does not act' is said to mean 'not the doer.' For the jīva is inert compared with the Lord (Prabhu).

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

'Knowledge alone destroys ignorance,' he says—hence 'by knowledge.' The first knowledge is indirect (parokṣa).

'Direct knowledge as the means without admixture'—thus he indicates: 'tad-buddhay' (those intellects).

'Knowledge by which one sees the essential nature of the Supreme Lord everywhere equally'—this is to be understood as the means of direct (aparokṣa) knowledge; thus he calls it 'vidyā.'

He means: 'He indeed praises that very [knowledge here].'

Renunciation, yoga and knowledge are combined and treated together in the remainder of the chapter (prapañcya-adhyāyaśeṣeṇa).

Again he explains the preeminence of yoga: 'in external contacts...' —the pleasure that one who is free from desire enjoys in the self is the same imperishable bliss that the brahmayukta ātma—united with Brahman through meditation and such practices—enjoys. In other words, the object-related state (brahma-viṣaya) becomes Brahma-yoga only for one whose meditation is joined to Brahman; then the soul's bliss is imperishable. Otherwise not.

'These condemn desire and sensual enjoyment for the sake of renunciation'—thus [he says].

He praises that relinquishment: 'he is able'—that is, one can endure the impulse born of desire and anger; prior to liberation from the body. Just as one can endure in a human body, and not elsewhere—the sense is that attainment of Brahma-loka is only for those who have conquered desires.

The distinguishing mark of knowledge distinguishes the phenomenal world, as the following verses show. Arama (comfort) is caused by perceiving another; here, however, the cause is the vision of the Paramātmā. The comfort (sukha) is disclosed when pain is removed. Here, when desire is destroyed the self's own bliss manifests from self-luminosity (svayambhājyoti) of Bhagavān. That manifested is the inner light. Though inner light is present in all, there is a distinction in the manifested. In the case of those in the asamprajñāta samādhi, the external perceptions are absent. Even in perception there is only a verbal (linguistic) specification of some action. It has been stated that the pleasures born of seeing, touching and conversing arise for men. The comfort to be known there is the bliss arising from the destruction of desire, as said in the Nāradiya: “Being self-luminous is the great Viṣṇu; inner light abides in Him.” Since it is inner bliss, the cause is said to be Brahman in whom beings exist.

He says: “There is this also — the destruction of sin.” Having their slight stains removed, having the duality cut asunder, the self-controlled become—‘chinna-dvaidha’ (one whose duality is cut). ‘Dve-dhā bhāva’ means a twofold state: it is either doubt or perversion. So it is said that perversion or doubt is that duality which you have made in yourself. Taking hold of that by the weapon of knowledge, detached and free from attachments, one should wander, it says. ‘Chinna-dvaidha’ means the self-controllers whose duality is torn away, whose mind is long and who are omniscient. Thus they are called ‘chinna-dvaidha’. It is further said that with sins diminished, great knowledge arises and doubts are removed. Or: ‘chinna-dvaidha — those self-controlled ones...’

He says their attainment of Brahman is easy: by the destruction of desire and anger — they are free from them inside and out.

On the mode of meditation he says: sense‑contacts, etc., are impermanent. One should restrain the external sense‑contacts and govern the ears and so on by yoga. ‘Make the eye look between the eyebrows’ — that is, fix the eye on the space between the brows, and then gaze at the middle of the eyebrows. It is also said: one may fix the eye at the tip of the nose or at the middle of the eyebrows. ‘Make prāṇa and apāna equal and remain in kumbhaka’ — that is the meaning.

On the mode of meditation he says: sense‑contacts, etc., are impermanent. One should restrain the external sense‑contacts and govern the ears and so on by yoga. ‘Make the eye look between the eyebrows’ — that is, fix the eye on the space between the brows, and then gaze at the middle of the eyebrows. It is also said: one may fix the eye at the tip of the nose or at the middle of the eyebrows. ‘Make prāṇa and apāna equal and remain in kumbhaka’ — that is the meaning.

He states the object of meditation: the Enjoyer (bhoktā).