Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 1

व्याख्या-- 'जनार्दन'-- इस पदसे अर्जुन मानो यह भाव प्रकट करते हैं कि हे श्री कृष्ण! आप सभीकी याचना पूरी करनेवाले हैं; अतः मेरी याचना तो अवश्य ही पूरी करेंगे।'ज्यायसी चेत्कर्मणस्ते ৷৷. नियोजयसि केशव'-- मनुष्यके अन्तःकरणमें एक कमजोरी रहती है कि वह प्रश्न करके उत्तरके रूपमें भी वक्तासे अपनी बात अथवा सिद्धान्तका ही समर्थन चाहता है। इसे कमजोरी इसलिये कहा गया है कि वक्ताके निर्देशका चाहे वह मनोऽनुकूल हो या सर्वथा प्रतिकूल, पालन करनेका निश्चय ही शूरवीरता है, शेष सब कमजोरी या कायरता ही कही जायगी। इस कमजोरीके कारण ही मनुष्यको प्रतिकूलता सहनेमें कठिनाईका अनुभव होता है। जब वह प्रतिकूलताको सह नहीं सकता, तब वह अच्छाईका चोला पहन लेता है अर्थात् तब भलाईकी वेशमें बुराई आती है। जो बुराई भलाईके वशमें आती है, उसका त्याग करना बड़ा कठिन होता है। यहाँ अर्जुनमें भी हिंसा-त्यागरूप भलाईके वशेमें कर्तव्य-त्यागरूप बुराई आयी है। अतः वे कर्तव्य-कर्मसे ज्ञानको श्रेष्ठ मान रहे हैं। इसी कारण वे यहाँ प्रश्न करते हैं कि यदि आप कर्मसे ज्ञानको श्रेष्ठ मानते हैं, तो फिर मुझे युद्धरूप घोर कर्ममें क्यों लगाते हैं?

अर्जुन बोला हे जनार्दन यदि कर्मोंकी अपेक्षा ज्ञानको आप श्रेष्ठ मानते हैं ( तो हे केशव मुझे इस हिंसारूप क्रूर कर्ममें क्यों लगाते हैं ) यदि ज्ञान और कर्म दोनोंका समुच्चय भगवान्को सम्मत होता तो फिर कल्याणका वह एक साधन कहिये कर्मोंसे ज्ञान श्रेष्ठ है इत्यादि वाक्योंद्वारा अर्जुनका ज्ञानसे कर्मोंको पृथक् करना अनुचित होता। क्योंकि ( समुच्चयपक्षमें ) कर्मकी अपेक्षा उस ( ज्ञान ) का फलके नाते श्रेष्ठ होना सम्भव नहीं। तथा भगवान्ने कर्मोंकी अपेक्षा ज्ञानको कल्याणकारक बतलाया और मुझसे ऐसा कहते हैं कि तू अकल्याणकारक कर्म ही कर इसमें क्या कारण है यह सोचकर अर्जुनने भगवान्को उलहनासा देते हुए जो ऐसा कहा कि तो फिर हे केशव मुझे इस हिंसारूप घोर क्रूर कर्ममें क्यों लगाते हैं वह भी उचित नहीं होता। यदि भगवान्ने स्मार्तकर्मके साथ ही ज्ञानका समुच्चय सबके लिये कहा होता एवं अर्जुनने भी ऐसा ही समझा होता तो उसका यह कहना कि फिर हे केशव मुझे घोर कर्ममें क्यों लगाते हैं कैसे युक्तियुक्त हो सकता।

The nature of the Self and the means of knowledge were stated previously.

Criticizing inaction (akarma) as a means of knowledge, action is ordained in the subsequent chapter.

It was stated by the Lord in verses like "Action is far inferior..." (2.49) that Knowledge is far superior to Action.

If this is so, "Why do You engage me in this terrible action called war, without [the qualification of] the virtues of renunciation (nivrittidharma)?"

He asks this with "jyayasi" etc. "If Buddhi (wisdom/knowledge) is considered by You ('te') to be superior ('jyayasi') to Action..."

In the previous chapter, two paths (Nishthas) serving as the means and the goal—Action-steadfastness (Karma-nishtha) and Knowledge-steadfastness (Jnana-nishtha)—were proclaimed. Among them, from the verse "prajahati" up to "esha brahmi" (2.55 to 2.72), Jnana-nishtha was declared to be supreme.

Hearing that very thing, Arjuna, anxious for Jnana-nishtha which is the fruit, and considering himself qualified for knowledge preceded by the purification of the mind, spoke the verse "jyayasi" etc.

Addressing Him as "Janardana"—he who torments (ardayati) people (meaning the enemies of the gods)—he implies: "Since I am not an Asura (demon), it is inappropriate for You to cause me pain by instigating me into a terrible action."

If Buddhi (Knowledge) is considered by You to be superior even to desireless action, then why do You engage (instigate) me, Your devotee, in this cruel action which is predominantly violent, with words like "Therefore, fight"?

Addressing Him as "Keshava"—He to whom "Ka" (Brahma) and others go for compassion (or He who is the Lord of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva)—he implies: "Be 'Keshava' (beneficent) towards me, Your devotee, and not 'Janardana' (tormentor)."

The nature of the Self and the means of knowledge were stated previously. Criticizing inaction (akarma) as a means of knowledge, action is ordained in the subsequent chapter. It was stated by the Lord in verses like "Action is far inferior..." (2.49) that Knowledge is far superior to Action.

If this is so, "Why do You engage me in this terrible action called war, without [the qualification of] the virtues of renunciation (nivrittidharma)?" He asks this with "jyayasi" etc. "If Buddhi (wisdom/knowledge) is considered by You ('te') to be superior ('jyayasi') to Action..."

In the previous chapter, having displayed two understandings (buddhis) with "This understanding has been declared to you regarding Sankhya, but hear this regarding Yoga..."; and having stated via the verse "The resolute understanding is one..." (vyavasayatmika buddhih) that for those established in Sankhya there is no fear of a fall, but for those established in Karma Yoga it exists; and having heard via "As much use as there is in a reservoir..." (yavanartha udapane) that the fruits of all actions are included in Sankhya-nishtha; considering that very (Sankhya-nishtha)—which is of the nature of tranquility—to be favorable to his own disposition, Arjuna spoke "Jyayasi" etc.

O Janardana, if Buddhi—meaning Knowledge characterized by Sankhya-nishtha—is considered by You to be Jyayasi (more praiseworthy or superior) than Action (referring to desireless Karma Yoga), then why and for what reason do You engage me—who am content even with living by begging—in this terrible action known as the killing of kinsmen, by repeatedly saying "Fight"?

Arjuna said: If Buddhi indeed is superior to Action in Your opinion, then why do You engage me in terrible action?

This is what is meant: Knowledge-steadfastness (Jnana-nishtha) alone is the means for Self-realization (atmavalokana), whereas Action-steadfastness (Karma-nishtha) is the producer of that [Knowledge].

And Jnana-nishtha, which constitutes the means for Self-realization, has been declared as being achievable through the cessation (uparati) of the activities of all the senses and the mind regarding objects like sound, etc.

If Self-realization—which is achievable by the cessation of sense-activities—is desired to be accomplished, then I should be engaged only in Jnana-nishtha preceded by the cessation of all actions.

Why do You engage me in terrible action, which is of the nature of the activity of all senses and is opposed to Self-realization?

Thus, initially, the discriminative understanding of the body and Self (dehatma-viveka-buddhi) was stated as the means to liberation through verses beginning with "You grieve for those who should not be grieved for..." (ashochyananvashochastvam). Thereafter, Action (Karma) was also stated through verses beginning with "This understanding has been declared to you in Sankhya..." (esha te'bhihita sankhye).

However, the relationship of subsidiary and primary (guna-pradhana) between the two was not clearly shown. There, due to the mention of desirelessness, controlled senses, and absence of ego for the one endowed with wisdom (the Sthitaprajna), and due to the laudatory conclusion "This is the state of Brahman, O Partha" (esha brahmi sthitih partha), Arjuna—believing that between Buddhi and Karma, the superiority of Buddhi is the Lord's opinion—spoke the words "Jyayasi chet" (If superior...) etc.

If Buddhi is considered by You to be Jyayasi—meaning greater or superior—to Action, because it is the internal (direct) means to liberation, then why do You engage—impel—me in terrible action, which is violent in nature, by repeatedly saying "Therefore fight" and "Therefore arise"?

Now, desiring to speak of the connection, showing the direct means to liberation which will be described, and its nature and its goal, [and] removing the doubt of a lack of connection in a scripture pertaining chiefly to liberation due to the meaning spoken in the second chapter not being the direct means to liberation, [he] proclaims the status of being a necessary procedure (itikartavyata)—with 'Tadevam' etc. The meaning is: because of the proper execution of the second chapter through the refutation of the mode stated by Shankara and others.

With 'Evam' (thus), [he] points out the propriety of his own statement. "The knower of Brahman attains the Supreme" (Tait. 2.1.1), "Having attained the Supreme Light" (Chan. 8.3.4), "Goes to the Divine Person higher than the high" (Mund. 3.2.8), "Having obtained this Flavor, he becomes blissful" (Tait. 2.7), "Attains supreme equality" (Mund. 3.1.3)—[citing these,] he expands on the proof regarding the vision of the self being a subsidiary to the Supreme Knowledge (Para-vidya)—with 'Prajapati' etc.

In the vicinity of a fruitful [act], the fruitless is its part. There, the proximity is stated—with 'Dahara' etc. To express the fact of its object being the inner self, [he] states the mode of purification of the inner self mentioned in that context—with 'Jagarita' (waking state) etc.

Indeed, Prajapati taught the inner self qualified by the three states starting with waking in sequence; Indra, however, [saying] "I do not see enjoyment here" (Chan. 8.9.1/8.10.2), turning away again and again at each stage, asked repeatedly; and then, realizing the fitness of the one desirous of hearing, Prajapati spoke of the pure nature, "Existing indeed without body" (Chan. 8.12.1).

Here, to establish the status of being a subsidiary, [he] states the absence of a separate result from the Dahara-knowledge and the fact of having that as the sole result—with 'Evameva' etc. This is what is said: The statement of Prajapati is indeed inside the section of Dahara-knowledge; and no result other than the Highest Good (Moksha) is mentioned for the vision of the inner self spoken in Prajapati's statement; nor is the mere vision of the inner self the means to the Highest Good, because of the contradiction with "There is no other path" (Svet. 3.8) etc., and the 'Tat-kratu' maxim; nor is the attainment of the Jiva alone mentioned as the fruit here, because of the qualification "Supreme Light"; and because the word "Supreme Light" is well-known to have the Supreme Self as its object via "Narayana is the Supreme Light" (Maha. Nar. 11.4) etc.; and because in the Dahara-knowledge, even earlier, He alone is spoken of by the word "Supreme Light"; and because the difference between the attainer and the object to be attained is established by the natural flow; and because of the mention of freedom from sorrow and enjoyment of unexcelled free will obtainable by the Person who has attained equality with the Supreme Brahman for the self who is the attainer. Therefore, since the principal fruit itself is mentioned here even in its subsidiary, the vision of the inner self is a limb of the Supreme Knowledge.

Now, citing the Katha-valli Upanishad, which has the direct mention of the word Bhakti and assumes the same form as the composition of the Bhagavad Gita through the recognition of meaning via verses like "He is not born nor does he die" (2.20) differentiated [only] by the insertion and removal of a few words, for the sake of doubt-free clarification of the stated meaning, [he] illustrates—with 'Anyatrapi' etc.

In the injunction sentence containing the subsidiary and the fruit and the principal, [he] divides the principal part and the subsidiary part—with 'Devam matva' etc.

Regarding "By the attainment of Adhyatma Yoga": because regarding "Matva" (having known), implying a result to be achieved if interpreted as referring directly to the Supreme Yoga is not fitting; and because the word 'Yoga' does not denote knowledge born of scripture; [therefore] regarding 'Matva', implying 'by the scripture' is inappropriate due to the awkward syntax; and because the Jiva also is described right there as similar to the Supreme; it is proper that [Adhyatma Yoga] refers to the Yoga supported by [meditation on] the Jiva.

Regarding the knowledge prescribed as a subsidiary, whose nature is to be defined solely by the Knowable, [he] states the instruction on the purification of the nature of the relative object of knowledge—with 'Na jayate'.

Thus, the portion to be elaborated by the first hexad is stated. As summarized: "The disciplines consisting of Knowledge and Action, characterized by Yoga, well-refined, are ordained in the first hexad for the perfection of self-realization" (Gitartha Sangraha 2).

Now [he] cites the portion to be elaborated by the second and third hexads—with 'Anoraniyan' etc. This also is summarized: "For the successful attainment of the true nature of the reality of the Lord, Bhakti Yoga, accomplished by Knowledge and Action, is proclaimed in the middle [hexad]. The distinction between Nature (Pradhana), Spirit (Purusha), Manifest, and the Lord; Karma, Knowledge, Bhakti etc.; the remainder of the former and the last are spoken of [in the last hexad]" (Gitartha Sangraha 3-4).

[He] states the meaning of 'Anoraniyan' etc.—with 'Parasvarupam'. Regarding 'Mahantam Vibhum', [he] states—'Tadupasanam' (His worship). Regarding 'Nayam Atma', [he] states the intended meaning—'Upasanasya ca'. This sentence is devoted to the prescription of the specific quality causing one to be chosen, named Bhakti, through the negation of mere reflection, meditation, and hearing; this is clearly explained in the Shariraka Bhashya and others.

Even in the conclusion of the fruit of Supreme Knowledge stated as "Having known, the wise one abandons joy and grief," "Having known, the wise one does not grieve," to show that the knowledge of the inner self has this single result, [he] states—'Vijnana' etc.

Thus, by the introduction, conclusion, etc., in this section constituted of Supreme Knowledge, the knowledge of the inner self—indicated as the cause of the knowledge of the Supreme Self by "Having known the God through the attainment of Adhyatma Yoga" and devoid of a separate fruit—is established as a subsidiary to Supreme Knowledge; thus, even in this section appearing as an elaboration of that, such a nature must be determined—this is what is said.

Thus, at the conclusion of the brief statement, having justified the subsidiary nature of self-knowledge to the Supreme Knowledge that will be spoken of, for the ease of understanding and for the breaking of the views of the evil-minded, [he] states the connection of the mentioned portion of the remainder of the first hexad, which has the form of the detailed exposition of what was said—with 'Atah param'.

In a single hexad alone, the proceeding is by division of baskets (sections) in the form of summary and detail. By the emphasis 'Idam eva' (this indeed), it makes known that in the four chapters, the topic of the Supreme Self, meditation on Him, etc., are subsidiary to self-realization just as before, as in "Sit yoked, intent on Me" (2.61). To avoid repetition, "Prapancayati" (expands) is said. To show it has a purpose, [he] states the mode of expansion—with 'Sasadhanam'.

Here Arjuna, restrained by the impression of the cessation of war activity occurring previously, and being fond of the portion of the instruction on cessation [of action] within the instruction of the means consisting of engagement and withdrawal, asks through an objection—with 'Jyayasi'. First, [he] states the syntax of the first verse—with 'Yadi'.

Where was it taught that "Buddhi is superior to Karma"? "Karma is far inferior to Buddhi-yoga" (2.49) etc. was explained as referring to Karma Yoga qualified by specific intellect. And of what form is the superiority intended here? And if Buddhi is superior, what is the fault in the command for Karma according to eligibility? And the word 'Ghora' is a synonym for terrible. And Karma Yoga is not terrible. And is the word 'Kim' (Why) here for a question or for objection? Anticipating such [doubts], [he] states—'Etat uktam'.

There, regarding the mode of superiority of Buddhi and the mode of its earlier statement, [he] states—'Jnananishthaiva'. In the section on the 'One of Steady Wisdom', the causality of Karma for the discipline of Knowledge was stated; and the causality of the discipline of Knowledge alone for the vision of the self [was stated]; and therefore, since Buddhi is superior due to lack of intervention (directness), [he] reveals the meaning spoken: the performance of the discipline of Knowledge acts as an adversary to Karma, leading to the unworthiness of the command [to perform Karma] according to eligibility—with 'Atma'.

[He] reminds of what was said in "When he withdraws..." (2.58)—with 'Sakalendriya'.

Regarding the word 'Kim' as meant for objection, and the word 'Chet' (if) in 'Jyayasi chet' having a determined object, [he] states the resultant meaning—'Indriyavyapara'. 'Sakala karma' is meant to include actions with attachment.

'Kimartham' (For what purpose). Not for Your own purpose, because of [Your] fullness. Nor for the sake of bestowing worldly results; for You, Janardana (remover of birth), have the nature of removing that. Nor for the sake of deceiving me, making the killing of Dhartarashtras etc., who are a burden to the earth, the instrument; for towards me, who has surrendered, Keshava (Lord of Brahma and Rudra) or Your father, that is inappropriate. Nor for the speed of the result, since the sequence was taught earlier. Nor for ease, or for the avoidance of sin caused by non-performance; because being of the nature of the activity of all senses, it is terrible for the seeker of liberation as it opposes the vision of the self accomplished by their cessation. Nor for the sake of world-maintenance, since teaching the nature of things as they are is appropriate even for the world. Therefore, You should not engage me, who is proclaimed by You Yourself as equal to [Your] life, in Karma not desired by You—this is the sentiment.

Since the word 'Ghora' cannot refer to scriptural harm to living beings here, [he] states the intended meaning suitable to the context—'Sarvendriyavyapara rupah' (of the form of the activity of all senses).

Even then, how is it terrible? To this [he] says—'Atmavalokanavirodhini' (opposing the vision of the self).

अभी भी अर्जुन का यही विश्वास है कि गुरुजन पितामह आदि के साथ युद्ध करना भयानक कर्म है। लगता है अर्जुन या तो भगवान् के उपदेश को भूल गया है या वह उसे कभी समझ ही नहीं पाया था। श्रीकृष्ण ने यह बिल्कुल स्पष्ट किया था कि महाभारत के युद्ध में अर्जुन गुरुजनों को मारने वाला नहीं था क्योंकि यह युद्ध व्यक्तियों के बीच न होकर दो सिद्धांतों के मध्य था। पाण्डवों का पक्ष धर्म और नैतिकता का था। परन्तु दुर्भाग्यवश अर्जुन अपने अहंकार को भूलकर अपने पक्ष के साथ एकरूप नहीं हो पाया। जिस मात्रा में वह आदर्श के साथ तादात्म्य नहीं कर पाया उस मात्रा में उसका अहंकार बना रहा और युद्ध करने में उसे नैतिक दोष दिखाई दिया।इस श्लोक में अर्जुन का तात्पर्य यह है कि यद्यपि श्रीकृष्ण के तर्कसंन्यासमार्ग का ही अनुमोदन कर रहे थे परन्तु उसे भयंकर कर्म में प्रवृत्त किया जा रहा था।

"Jyayasi" (If superior...) etc. "Vyamishrena" (With mixed/perplexing...) etc. Action has been spoken of, and Knowledge too. There, the primacy of both simultaneously is not logical, but rather [the primacy] is of Knowledge alone.

If, according to the maxim "One endowed with wisdom casts off [actions] in this world" (Gita 2.50/52), actions are capable of being destroyed/removed by the strength of that [Knowledge], then what is the purpose of actions from the very root? This is the intention of the question.

Salutations to Sri Venkatesha. Showing the difference of this [chapter] from the preceding and succeeding chapters and its unity within itself, desiring to speak of the meaning to be propounded in this chapter as connected with the meaning of the previous chapter, [he] first states the subject matter—'Atma' etc. The nature of the Jiva and Ishvara is what is named Sankhya—this is the meaning. The means of knowledge is the means of self-knowledge, named Yoga.

'Purvatra' [means] in the preceding chapter. And strictly speaking, this does not make the unity of the second chapter untenable, because of the abundance of the means alone, and because designation is by the abundant [factor]. And thus, in the seventh [chapter] and others, [he] will say—"The means has been spoken of principally by the past chapters." 'Atmasvarupa' (nature of self) etc., however, was said to demonstrate the difference in topic.

Being connected to this, [he] states the meaning of the third chapter—'Jnana' etc. Yoga is of two kinds, due to the division of Action and Samadhi. There, first, Action is prescribed as a means to knowledge, "it must be done indeed"—thus it is made known; by certain sentences, having censured 'Akarma' (non-action), in this chapter even the censure of non-action is for the purpose of enjoining action; thus [there is] unity of meaning. Even so, it was stated thus for the purpose of [showing] the difference of the section.

By saying "as a means to knowledge," the status [of Karma] as a means to liberation [directly] is refuted. By that, the wrong explanation of the question and answer is also set aside. However, its purpose for the increase of bliss is indeed admitted.

Showing the seed, [he] states the purport of the question sentence—'Karmana' etc. By the word 'Adi' (etc.), "Wretched are those motivated by fruit" (2.49) etc. are included. 'Ghore' (terrible) [means] endowed with attachment and aversion etc. Here in both places, by the word 'Karma', desire-prompted action is intended. [Regarding] 'Nivritti-dharman' (du-ties of cessation) [meaning] desireless duties and those prescribed for the ascetic order like Shama (control of mind), Dama (control of senses) etc. Here, "Why do you engage me in action?" is one question; "[Why in] terrible [action]?" is the second—this should be noted.

This is what is said: Actions like sacrifice etc. and war etc. prescribed for the three stages of life are indeed desire-prompted, because of the hearing of fruits in "All these become possessors of meritorious worlds" (Chandogya 2.23.2) etc. Similarly here also, "Or slain, you will attain heaven" (2.37) etc. Shama etc. prescribed for the fourth stage of life are desireless, because of the non-hearing of [material] fruit, and because of hearing that they are for the sake of knowledge in "Having become calm, self-controlled..." beginning thus, "he sees the Self" (Brihadaranyaka 4.4.23). And Knowledge is stated to be far superior to desire-prompted action. And therefore, engaging [me] in desire-prompted action, in war—"Fight, O Bharata" (2.18)—is improper; rather, "Having accepted the fourth stage of life, be devoted to its duties"—thus should [I] be engaged.

If it is argued that war also, because of the statement "you will cast off the bondage of Karma" (2.39), becomes for the sake of knowledge—then by the mixed sentence, confusion of the intellect indeed results. Now if the view is thus: Actions like war etc. are [both] desire-prompted and desireless. There, for him who is desirous, "Or slain..." (2.37) etc. was said. But for him who seeks knowledge, addressing him, "Your right is in action alone" (2.47) was said; therein what is the mixture? Even so, when there exist pure duties of the ascetic order characterized by cessation, which are optional, engaging in [war] is indeed improper. Because there (in ascetic duties) there is absence of mental distraction, and here (in war) there is its existence.

Moreover, lust, anger etc. are said to have hell as their fruit. And in war, lust etc. are unavoidable. Therefore also, engaging therein is improper. "But the answer to this was given as 'Having made pleasure and pain equal' (2.38)"—True; yet, while there exist ascetic duties devoid of the contingency of attachment etc. and possible to perform, engaging in war which is impossible to perform [without attachment] is indeed improper.

In the first verse, showing the syntax because of the separation of words, [he] explains a little—'Karmana' etc. To refute the illusion of the genitive case, 'Sakashat' (than/from) is said. 'Buddhi' [means] self-knowledge. 'Jyayasi' [means] more praiseworthy.

Thus, having provided the introduction with the first chapter, the entire purport of the scripture has been aphoristically stated by the second chapter. It is as follows: In the beginning, steadfastness in desireless action (Nishkama-karma-nishtha); then purification of the mind (Antahkarana-shuddhi); then renunciation of all actions preceded by means like Shama (control of mind) and Dama (control of senses); then steadfastness in devotion to the Lord accompanied by reflection on Vedanta statements; then steadfastness in Knowledge of Reality (Tattva-jnana-nishtha); and its fruit is liberation while living (Jivanmukti) through the cessation of ignorance constituted by the three Gunas, lasting until the exhaustion of Prarabdha karma (destined karma), and at the end of that, liberation without the body (Videhamukti).

In the state of Jivanmukti, by relying on the supreme goal of life, the attainment of supreme dispassion (Para-vairagya) and the auspicious latent impressions called 'Divine Wealth' (Daivi-sampad)—which are helpful to it—are to be adopted. And the inauspicious latent impressions called 'Demoniac Wealth' (Asuri-sampad), which are opposed to it, are to be rejected. The extraordinary cause of Divine Wealth is Sattvic Faith (Shraddha), while Demoniac Wealth corresponds to Rajasic and Tamasic faith—thus by the division of what is to be rejected and what is to be adopted, the entire meaning of the scripture is concluded.

Salutations to Sri Krishna. Regarding Yoga, Sankhya, the state of Brahman, Action, etc., arising from the sentence of the question... possessed of doubt and desirous of attaining Bhakti, Arjuna spoke to Krishna.

Thus, in the previous chapter, the Lord stated that Buddhi-yoga is superior to Action; so, "With what intention is the instruction of Action given?" Possessed by this doubt, Arjuna spoke "Jyayasi" etc.

"O Janardana" (Destroyer of all ignorance), if Buddhi is considered by You to be "Jyayasi" (superior) to Action, then why do You engage (impel) me in this "Ghora" (terrible) action—where there is sin (pratyavaya) in non-performance and fruitlessness in even the slightest omission of action?

By the address "Keshava," this sentiment is implied: Since You are the giver of liberation even to those filled with evil qualities (like demons), if You wish to give liberation even after making one perform action, then it must indeed be done.

Jyayasi — If Buddhi (Knowledge) is considered by You ("Te") to be "Shreyasi" (better/superior) to Action, O Janardana. If the combination (Samuccaya) of Knowledge and Action were desired [by the Lord], then [since together] they would constitute a single means to the highest good, the distinction made by Arjuna that "Knowledge is superior to Action" would be untenable. For the very same thing cannot be distinct from (or superior to) itself in terms of result.

Furthermore, "Knowledge is superior to Action"—so the Lord has said, and yet He propounds to me, "Perform action which is not conducive to the highest good." "What indeed is the reason for this?"—thus, as if reproaching the Lord, he says "Tat kim" (Why then) do You engage me in this "Ghora" (terrible), cruel action characterized by violence, O Keshava? This statement also would not hold logic [if combination were the doctrine].

Moreover, if the combination [of Knowledge] with only Smarta actions (rites based on Smritis) was stated by the Lord for all, and understood by Arjuna, then how would the statement "Why do you engage me in terrible action..." be logical?

Now, through eight [sections], the duty of the three Vedas (Trayi-dharma), which generates devotion accompanied by the knowledge of [God's] greatness, is spoken to Partha by the Lord through words of established propriety (Maryada).

Having described Sankhya and Yoga initially, in the Third Chapter there is the determination of Duty (Dharma). Between the distinction of Renunciation (Tyaga) and Non-renunciation (Atyaga), Non-renunciation is superior to Renunciation.

As long as there is a connection with the body, renunciation is not possible to perform [completely]. Therefore, action performed for His sake, as ordained by the Lord, is best.

Knowing the 'renunciation' concluded by Sankhya-understanding within Yoga (the path of action), but due to uncertainty there, Phalguna (Arjuna) asks.

(Commentary): Although previously the Lord began the topic of Yoga-understanding with "This understanding has been declared to you in Sankhya..." (2.39) and in that Yoga instructed [performance of] one's own duty; yet at the end, in the context of the one of steady wisdom (Sthita-dhi), He concluded again with the 'mindset of renunciation'. Not knowing the decision [between these two], he asks - Arjuna said "Jyayasi chet" etc. If Buddhi (Knowledge) is thus considered by You to be Jyayasi (superior) to Action, then why do You engage me in terrible action (war)?

ज्यायसी superior? चेत् if? कर्मणः than action? ते by Thee? मता thought? बुद्धिः knowledge? जनार्दन O Janardana? तत् then? किम् why? कर्मणि in action? घोरे terrible? माम् me? नियोजयसि Thou engagest? केशव O Kesava.Commentary In verses 49? 50 and 51 of chapter II? Lord Krsihna has spoken very highly about Buddhi Yoga. He again asks Arjuna to fight. That is the reason why Arjuna is perplexed now.

O Janardana, cet, if it be; te, Your; mata, opinion, intention; that buddhih, Wisdom; jyayasi, is superior; karmanah, to action-.
If the combination of Wisdom and action be intended (by the Lord), then the means to Liberation is only one. [The path combining Wisdom and action.] In that case, Arjuna would have done something illogical in separating Wisdom from action by saying that Wisdom is superior to action. For, that (Wisdom or action, which is a constituent of the combination) cannot be greater than that (Combination, even) from the point of view of the result. [Since what is intended is a combination, therefore, the separation of Knowledge from action, from the point of view of the result, is not justifiable. When Knowledge and action are considered to form together a single means to Liberation, in that case each of them cannot be considered separately as producing its own distinct result. Arjuna's estion can be justified only if this separation were possible.] Similarly, what Arjuna said by way of censuring the Lord, as it were, in, 'It has been stated by the Lord that Wisdom is superior to action, and He exhorts me saying, "Undertake action," which is a source of evil! What may be the reason for this?', and also in, 'Tatkim, why then, O Kesava; niyojayasi, do You urge; mam, me; to ghore, horrible, cruel; karmani, action; involving injury?'-that (censure) also does not become reasonable.
On the other hand, [If the opponent's view be that Knowledge is to be combined with rites and duties sanctioned by the Vedas and the Smrtis in the case of the householders only, whereas for others those sanctioned by the Smrtis alone are to be combined with Knowledge৷৷., then৷৷.] if it be supposed that the combination (of Knowledge) with action sanctioned only by the Smrtis has been enjoined for all by the Lord, and Arjuna also comprehended (accordingly), then, how can the statement, 'Why then do you urge me to horrible action', be rational?
Besides,

'Arjuna said If you consider that knowledge is superior to works, why do you engage me in this terrible deed?' What is said here is this: If the firm adherence to knowledge is the only means to the vision of the self, then how can one accept the idea that devotion to works (Karma) leads to it? It was said before that this firm devotion to knowledge, which forms the means for the vision of the self, could arise by the cessation of the activities of all the senses and the mind in relation to their respective objects such as sound. If the vision of the self is to be attained, which arises by the cessation of the activities of the senses, I should be guided to engage myself solely to acire firm devotion to knowledge, which is preceded by the abandoning of all works. For what purpose, then, do you engage me in this terrible deed, which consists in the activities of all the senses, and is thus an obstacle for the vision of the self?