Theistic Sankhya is the core teaching of the Gita
Ṡukra-S01, 5126 K.E.
Bhagavad-Gita propounds an out-and-out Sāṅkhya-darṡana and Yoga-darṡana (or Sāṅkhya-yoga for short) at its core. Not to be confused as “The Yoga of Sankhya”; I mean two of the six āstika schools of Indian philosophy, traditionally ascribed to Kapila and Patanjali. The central teaching of the Gita is not aligned with Vedanta or Mīmāṃsā but it is Sāṅkhya-yoga, specifically a form of Sēṡvara-sāṅkhya (theistic Sankhya). The Yoga-sutras of Patanjali accepts the cosmology and metaphysics of Sankhya but adds the concept of Īṡvara (omnipresent, omnipotent and benevolent) to the duality of Prakṛti (primordial matter) and Puruṣa (individual self). Īṡvara is just a special puruṣa (viṡēṣa-puruṣa or puruṣōttama) who never had any conact with Prakṛti (so, no karma, no rebirth, etc.) [Yoga-sutras 1.23, 1.26, etc.]. Īṡvara does not create the universe and does not give karma-phala (fruits of actions), which is discussed below.
This theory of theistic Sankhya is well-developed in the Mokshadharma (Shanti-parva of Mahabharata). It is discussed elaborately in chapters 211-212, 228, 289, 294, 303, 337-338. It is interesting that of all the six schools of philosophy, only Sankhya and Yoga are mentioned by name and elaborated throughout the Mahabharata. There is no mention of ‘Brahma Sutras’ or ‘Vedanta sutras’ of Badarayana anywhere; the occurences of the word ‘vedanta’ are trivial.
Prakriti is the doer
One of the central tenets of classical Sāṅkhya is the idea that Puruṣa is sentient-but-inactive and Prakṛti is insentient-but-active. Puruṣa is neither the doer/agent (kartṛ) nor enjoyer (bhoktṛ). It is actually Buddhi (Prakṛti) that acts and/or enjoys. Puruṣa remains a passive witness (sākṣin) and Prakṛti is the doer of all actions through its three guṇas. This is reiterated in Bhagavad Gita several times:
na hi kaṡcit kṣaṇam api jātu tiṣṭhaty akarma-kṛt
kāryatē hy avaṡaḥ karma sarvaḥ prakṛti-jair guṇaiḥ /3.5/
prakṛtēḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaṡaḥ
ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā kartāham iti manyatē /3.27/
The Puruṣa (either individual self or the Supreme self) cannot create, destroy, etc. because they are passive by definition. They are mute witnesses. This is also mentioned:
na kartṛtvaṃ na karmāṇi lōkasya sṛjati prabhuḥ
na karma-phala-saṃyōgaṃ svabhāvas tu pravartatē /5.14/
“The lord does not create either the agency (the means of action) or the actions of people (world), or the union of action with its fruit. Nature, on the other hand, proceeds (in all this).”
The above verse causes confusion in Vedanta circles (some say prabhu is individual self, some say Supreme Self, etc.), but the above does not need any elaboration for a Sankhya-yogin.
The word ‘prabhu’ (lord) refers here to Puruṣa (passive principle), hence the above is equally true for both jīvātman and Īṡvara. In Sāṅkhya, the responsibility of dispensing fruits of one’s actions (karma-phala) rests with Prakṛti alone. Karma-phala arises as a natural consequence of one’s actions (karma), governed by Prakṛti. This is similar to how gravity works — it doesn’t judge, it simply operates by its laws. It is the “svabhāva” (inherent nature) of Prakṛti. In sēṡvara-Sāṅkhya, even though Īṡvara is accepted, he too is a Puruṣa and hence passive. Īṡvara serves as an object of meditation or a guru (YS 1.26) but is not the ordainer. So the above verse fits immediately.
It is repeated again in Chapter 13:
prakṛtiṃ puruṣaṃ caiva viddhy anādī ubhāv api
vikārāṃṡ ca guṇāṃṡ caiva viddhi prakṛti-sambhavān /13.20/
prakṛtyaiva ca karmāṇi kriyamāṇāni sarvaṡaḥ
yaḥ paṡyati tathātmānam akartāraṃ sa paṡyati /13.29/
The respected Vedantin acharyas (Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva) have to jump through hoops to justify agency to puruṣa instead of prakṛti, when the text is so plainly clear (see Note 2 in the chapter “Concluding Reflections” in Edwin Bryant’s book on Yoga Sutra).
Eight Prakṛtis
The Mokshadharma chapters 294, 304 speak of eight Prakṛtis. It is repeated again by Bhagavān here:
bhūmir āpō’nalō vāyuḥ khaṃ manō buddhir ēva ca
ahaṅkāra itīyaṃ mē bhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhā /7.4/
Prakṛti is the creator of the Universe (animate and inanimate), Īṡvara just oversees it (He is an inspector, a passive witness adhyakṣa; does not act):
mayādhyakṣēṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyatē sa-carācaram
hētunānēna kauntēya jagad viparivartatē /10.10/
Sankhya-Yoga is Explicit
It is mentioned in Chapter 3 that there are only two paths - jñāna-yoga and karma-yoga:
lōkē’smin dvi-vidhā niṣṭhā purā prōktā mayānagha
jn̄āna-yōgēna sāṅkhyānāṃ karma-yōgēna yōginām /3.3/
“In this world there is a two-fold basis taught since ancient times by Me, O Arjuna: that of knowledge - the yoga of the followers of Sankhya and that of action - the yoga of the followers of Yoga.”
Sankhya is “thinking-oriented” whereas Yoga is “action-oriented”. Sankhya is the path of knowledge because Sankhya says that viveka, cognition of the discrimination between Puruṣa and Prakṛti, is the means of emancipation. The Yoga sutras of Patañjali prescribe physical actions such as breath control, postures and meditation for the same, hence it is the path of action.
Bhakti Yoga is not here! It has to be subsumed under one of these two yogas.
Later in chaper 5, we see that Sankhya and Yoga, are identical and only the childish differentiate:
sāṅkhya-yōgau pṛthag bālāḥ pravadanti na paṇḍitāḥ
ēkam apy āsthitaḥ samyag ubhayōr vindatē phalam /5.4/
yat sāṅkhyaiḥ prāpyatē sthānaṃ tad yōgair api gamyatē
ēkaṃ sāṅkhyaṃ ca yōgaṃ ca yaḥ paṡyati sa paṡyati /5.5/
The chapter 13 is completely about Prakṛti and Puruṣa (“prakṛtiṃ puruṣaṃ caiva …”, §13.1). The methods of Sankhya and Yoga are separately mentioned in 13.24:
dhyānēnātmani paṡyanti kēcid ātmānam ātmanā
anyē sāṅkhyēna yōgēna karma-yōgēna cāparē /13.25/
“Some perceive the Self in the Self by the Self through meditation; others by the yoga of Sankhya and still others by the yoga of Karma”.
There is no method called Bhakti Yoga or Prapatti Yoga or other later innovations.
Of course the last hexad of chapters (13-18) is full of three-fold classification of items into sattva-raja-tamas, which is the bread-and-butter of Sankhya school. Even the last chapter (§18.13 onwards) goes on discussing Sankhya classification.
Karma is born of one’s own material nature (§18.60). “Īṡvara-praṇidhāna”, contemplative devotion to a personal God, mentioned several times (Yoga-sutra 1.23, 2.1, 2.32, 2.45), is certainly encouraged in Yoga, as in the Bhagavad Gita. Specifically, the meditation on Praṇava (Ōṃ) is explicilty mentioned in Yoga-sutra 1.27 and Gita 8.13 as means to liberation. By the grace of Īṡvara, the yogi gets a direction vision / realization (samādhi) of his puruṣa (YS 1.29, 2.45), which is compatible with the Gita.
Bhakti Yoga is actually Patanjali’s Yoga
The Bhakti Yoga of today is conceptualized as idol worship, chanting stotras, singing bhajans, dancing, etc. But such a thing is unknown to the Gita. The core of Bhakti Yoga is unwavering meditation as Yoga (Pātan̄jali Yoga) focusing on the stillness of the mind. The twelfth-chapter ‘Bhakti Yoga’ of the Gita is as clear as water (12.8-10):
Keep your manas on Me alone, your buddhi on Me. Thus you shall dwell in Me hereafter. There is no doubt of this. Or if you are not able to keep your citta steadily on Me (samādhātuṃ), then seek to attain Me by the constant Yoga of abhāsya (practice), Arjuna. But if you are incapable even of practice, be intent on My work (mat-karma); even performing actions for My sake, you shall attain perfection. But if you are unable even to do this, then, resorting to My yoga (mad-yōgaṃ), and abandoning all the fruits of action, act with self-restraint.
Knowledge (jn̄āna) is indeed better than practice (abhāsya); meditation (dhyāna) is superior to knowledge; renunciation of the fruit of action is better than meditation; peace immediately follows renunciation.
Thus: karma-phala-tyāga > dhyāna > jn̄āna > abhāsya.
Manas and Buddhi are technical terms defined in Sāṅkhya-darṡana. Samādhi, dhyāna and abhyāsa are defined precisely in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali [YS 1.12ff]. Yoga is citta-vṛtti-nirōdha [YS 1.2], cessation of the changing states of mind, culminating in samādhi (final absorptive stage). This is directly referenced in Gita 12.9 (cittaṃ samādhātum).
In fact, Bhagavān defines Bhakti as essentially self-contentment, equanimity of mind and going beyond dualities like friend-foe, heat-cold, etc. (Gita 12.13-20).
Yajnas, arcanā, pūjā, or vigraha ārādhana are not central to bhakti at all! The Bhakti of Gita is very inward-looking, parelleling dhyāna, dhāraṇa, etc. of Patanjali Yoga.
Possible Objections
- How do you justify personal worship of God, e.g., Gita 9.26 (patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ) ?
Since Īṡvara is formless (saguṇa nirākāra), He cannot ‘eat’ or ‘drink’ in a material sense. The physical form of the food on the altar stays unmodified. This verse is pointing to a prakṛtic mechanism by which any sattvic action creates subtle impressions (saṃskāras) in your mind–intellect complex, which Īṡvara (the Viṡeṣa-Puruṣa) perceives. The purity of the act — symbolized by clean leaf, fresh flower, ripe fruit, pure water — ensures those saṃskāras are sattvic (harmonious, uplifting). Īṡvara, being the Omniscient, ‘accepts’ not the physical object but the sattvic saṃskāra generated by your action. Over time, these sattvik ‘tokens’ accumulate into puṇya, purify buddhi, and help you focus on the final discrimination of Puruṣa and Prakṛti.
[Note: Gita translations are largely from Winthrop Sargeant]