Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 2

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?

तथा यद्यपि भगवान् स्पष्ट कहनेवाले हैं तो भी मुझ मन्दबुद्धिको भगवान्के वाक्य मिले हुएसे प्रतीत होते हैं उन मिले हुएसे वचनोंसे आप मानो मेरी बुद्धिको मोहित कर रहे हैं। वास्तवमें आप तो मेरी बुद्धिका मोह दूर करनेके लिये प्रवृत्त हुए हैं फिर मुझे मोहित कैसे करते इसीलिये कहता हूँ कि आप मेरी बुद्धिको मोहितसी करते हैं। आप यदि अलगअलग अधिकारियोंद्वारा किये जाने योग्य ज्ञान और कर्मका अनुष्ठान एक पुरुषद्वारा किया जाना असम्भव मानते हैं तो उन दोनोंमेंसे ज्ञान या कर्म यही एक बुद्धि शक्ति और अवस्थाके अनुसार अर्जुनके लिये योग्य है ऐसा निश्चय करके मुझसे कहिये जिस ज्ञान या कर्म किसी एकसे में कल्याणको प्राप्त कर सकूँ। यदि कर्मनिष्ठामें गौणरूपसे भी ज्ञानको भगवान्ने कहा होता तो दोनोंमेंसे एक कहिये इस प्रकार एकहीको सुननेकी अर्जुनकी इच्छा कैसे होती क्योंकि ज्ञान और कर्म इन दोनोंमेंसे मैं तुझसे एक ही कहूँगा दोनों नहीं ऐसा भगवान्ने कहीं नहीं कहा कि जिससे अर्जुन अपने लिये दोनोंकी प्राप्ति असम्भव मानकर एकके लिये ही प्रार्थना करता।

Whatever has been said by the Vrittikaras—that "Combination (Samuccaya) [of Knowledge] with Sruti (Vedic) and Smriti (Traditional) actions is the means to the highest good for householders, and for others [it is combination] with Smriti actions alone," and that this was spoken by the Lord and ascertained by Arjuna—this [idea] he (Shankaracharya) restates with "Atha". Even in that case, the reproachful statement "Tat kim" (Why then...) would be untenable, because there would be no engagement [in a strictly contrary path/renunciation] by the Lord who advocates for action-combination—thus he refutes it with "Tat kim".

And for this reason too, the question does not follow the logic of combination, he says with "Kincha". Anticipating the doubt that since the Lord speaks distinct/clear meanings, the statement "Vyamishreneva" (By mixed/perplexing words...) is unjustified, he says "Yadyapi".

If the Lord's words appear confused to you, then [assuming] His intention is indeed the delusion of your intellect, why is it said "Why do you seem to delude"? To this he says "Mameti" (My [intellect]...). Knowledge and Action, due to mutual contradiction, cannot be performed simultaneously by one person and thus must be spoken of as having different agents; and in such a case, you are engaged in only one of them, and deluding your intellect is not intended [by Him]—he restates the Lord's view with "Tvam tu".

He answers with the meaning of the verse "Tadekam" (That one...) using "Tatreti". The stated view of the Lord is referred to by the locative case. "Ekam" (One) is the statement of the manner mentioned. He clarifies what is called "Ekam" with "Buddhim". He reveals the mode of determination with "Idam". He clarifies the suitability with "Buddhiti". Meaning: Determine and tell me that "this Knowledge or this Action" alone is suitable for me, who am a Kshatriya, considering my internal organ (mind), physical strength, and the state of commencing war. He states the fruit, which is the attainment of the highest good for the listener, resulting from speaking one [path] after determining it, with "Yena".

Having stated the literal meaning of the sentence "Tadekam", he states the purport regarding 'Combination' not being the meaning of the scripture with "Yadi hi". By "Gunabhutamapi" (Even if subsidiary), it is implied "Or even if primary". (Objection) Would not Arjuna, considering the attainment of both impossible for himself, have a desire to hear about one of them? He says "Nahi" (No). In the absence of the Lord's speech as described (i.e., if the Lord hadn't distinguished them), and with the understanding that attaining both is impossible, the request for one would not be possible, he says with "Yena". For, such a kind of speech (distinguishing the two) by the Lord is not desired by you (the opponent), because you accept the Lord as an advocate of Combination; therefore, due to the absence of that, the prayer for 'one' [path] is not logical based on the said understanding.

(Objection) "If you have ascertained from My words that 'That (Knowledge) alone is superior', then why do you ask now?" Anticipating this objection, he says "Vyamishreneva" (With seemingly mixed words...).

Praise of action through verses like "Endowed with which understanding..." (2.39); praise of knowledge through verses like "What is night for all beings..." (2.69); instructing that my right is only in action through "Your right is in action only..." (2.47); and instructing qualification in Knowledge-steadfastness through "The Vedas deal with the three Gunas, be free from the three Gunas, O Arjuna" (2.45)—by such "mixed" sentences which generate doubt regarding "What is superior? What is inferior? Where does my qualification lie and where does it not?", [You seem to delude me].

Although the Lord speaks distinct (clear) meanings, to me of dull intellect, the Lord's speech appears to be mixed; this is the meaning of the word "iva" (as if/seemingly). "Since You have set out indeed to remove the delusion of my intellect, how can You be deluding me?" Therefore, I say "You seem to delude my intellect."

If You consider that the performance of Knowledge and Action—which require different agents—is impossible for a single person [simultaneously], then determine one among the two—either Knowledge or Action—saying "This alone is suitable for you"; by which—either Knowledge or Action—I may attain Shreyas (Liberation). This is the meaning.

(Objection) Anticipating the thought, "Because you are not qualified for Knowledge-steadfastness, I tell you 'Do action only'," he says "Vyamishrena". "Vyamishra" means undistinguished (confused/mixed). The word "iva" (as if) indicates: "Even though [Your speech] is distinct (clear), due to a defect in my intellect, I grasp it as undistinguished."

By that speech—sometimes You make me abandon adherence to the Vedas (Rituals) with "The Vedas deal with the three Gunas, be free from the three Gunas, O Arjuna" (2.45); and You make me accept that very thing with "Your right is in action only" (2.47). Similarly, You teach the 'Path of Withdrawal' (Nivritti) with "Be free from dualities, ever established in Sattva, free from the need to acquire and preserve, and established in the Self" (2.45); and You also teach 'Active Engagement' (Pravritti) with "For a Kshatriya, there is no greater good than a righteous war" (2.31).

It is not possible for me, a single person, to practice both simultaneously, just as [one cannot perform] standing and walking [at the same time]. Therefore, "You seem to delude my intellect." In reality, You have set out to destroy my delusion, which is why it is expressed with the word "iva" (as if). "Tat"—Therefore, determine and tell me that one principal path among the two which is suitable for me, by practicing which I may attain Shreyas (Welfare).

Therefore, it appears to me that "You seem to delude me with mixed words."

It is explained thus: Jnana-nishtha (Knowledge-steadfastness) constitutes the means for Self-realization and is of the nature of the cessation of all sense-activities. To say that "Action"—which is of the opposite nature [to cessation]—is the means to that [Knowledge], and "Do that [Action] alone," is a contradictory and indeed mixed statement.

Therefore, speak one unmixed (unambiguous) sentence; by which sentence, having determined what is to be practiced, I may attain my Shreyas (Highest Good).

(Objection) "For indeed, there is no greater good for a Kshatriya than a righteous war..." (2.31) - by such statements, the superiority of action was indeed stated? Anticipating this doubt, he says "Vyamishrena" etc.

Somewhere praise of action, somewhere praise of knowledge—speech which is thus "mixed" and as if generating doubt; by that sentence, making my intellect (mind) oscillate between the two, "You seem to delude me."

For You, who are supremely compassionate, the quality of being a deluder does not exist; yet due to confusion, it appears so to me—this is expressed by the word "iva" (as if/seemingly). Therefore, determine one among the two which is beneficial and tell me.

Or [alternatively], determining that "This indeed is the means to the highest good," tell me that one thing only, by performing which I may attain Shreyas (Liberation).

Using the previously stated meaning as the cause, he states the meaning of the second verse with "Ata" (Therefore). Since the delusion of the insentient 'intellect' is metaphorical, it is stated as "Mam" (Me). He states what is indicated by the word "iva" (as if) with "Pratibhati" (It appears to me). By this, it is implied: "Because You are compassionate, You indeed do not delude; but I, being dull-witted, become deluded."

He explains the contradiction (vyaghata) intended by the word "Vyamishra" (mixed) and its nature with "Tathahi" (It is thus). "How can Action, which is of the nature of the opposite of that [Knowledge], be a means to it? And how can that which is opposed to it be performed by one desiring it?" — these two contradictions are intended here.

"Ekam" (One) does not refer to 'one of the two' between Knowledge and Action, because only one of them—Action—has been instructed; and regarding that, since there is an appearance of illogicality for himself, and since after that the removal of error is required, and that [removal] is achievable by the removal of the 'mixed' quality [of the instruction], and because it is appropriate for the word "Vakya" (speech/sentence) present in this verse to serve as the substantive (visheshya)—having this intention, it is said "Amishrarupam vakyam" (Unmixed/unambiguous sentence).

To dispel the error of connecting it with the preceding word, he states the meaning of "Nishchitya" (having determined) etc., with "Yena". The connection of "Nishchitya" is not with "Vada" (Tell); because for Him, the Omniscient One, there is no possibility of indecision even before, and even with the 'mixed speech', only the delusion of the other (Arjuna) was suspected. Therefore, the desire for determination is Arjuna's alone; and thus the connection is indeed "Having determined, I may attain the highest good." He states the doubtful subject that depends on determination as "Anushtheyarupam" (The form of what is to be practiced).

पहले से ही मोहितमन अर्जुन में सामान्य मनुष्य होने के नाते वह सूक्ष्म बुद्धि नहीं थी जिसके द्वारा विवेकपूर्वक भगवान् के सूक्ष्म तर्कों को समझ कर वह निश्चित कर सके कि परम श्रेय की प्राप्ति के लिए कर्म मार्ग सरल था अथवा ज्ञान मार्ग। इसलिए वह यहाँ भगवान् से नम्र निवेदन करता है आप उस मार्ग को निश्चित कर आदेश करिये जिससे मैं परम श्रेय को प्राप्त कर सकूँ।अर्जुन को इसमें संदेह नहीं था कि जीवन केवल धन के उपार्जन परिग्रह और व्यय के लिए नहीं है। वह जानता था कि उसका जीवन श्रेष्ठ सांस्कृतिक एवं आध्यात्मिक लक्ष्य की प्राप्ति के लिए था जिसके लिए भौतिक उन्नति केवल साधन थी साध्य नहीं। अर्जुन मात्र यह जानना चाहता था कि वह उपलब्ध परिस्थितियों का जीवन की लक्ष्य प्राप्ति और भविष्य निर्माण में किस प्रकार सदुपयोग करे।प्रश्न के अनुरूप भगवान् उत्तर देते हैं

"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), actions are capable of being destroyed by the strength of that [Knowledge] from the very root, then what is the purpose of actions? This is the intention of the question.

(Objection) "I do not deceive anyone, so how could I deceive you who are extremely dear to Me? What sign of deception do you see in Me?" If this is asked, Arjuna replies with "Tava vachanam" etc. Your speech is indeed not "mixed" (confused); however, due to the doubt regarding whether the qualification belongs to one person or different persons, that sentence of Yours—which propounds both Knowledge-steadfastness and Action-steadfastness to me—appears to be "mixed," meaning of confused import. By that sentence, You "seem to delude" (mohayasi iva) my intellect (mind/heart)—me being of dull intellect and unable to grasp the purport of the speech—meaning, You seem to connect me with delusion. Because You are supremely compassionate, You certainly do not delude; but delusion arises due to the defect of my own mind—this is the meaning of the word "iva" (as if).
If there is a single qualification (for both paths simultaneously), then "Combination" (Samuccaya) is not logical because they are contradictory; and if they do not have the same goal/meaning, "Option" (Vikalpa) is not logical—this has been stated before. If You consider that there is a difference in qualification (adhikari-bheda), then it is not appropriate to teach two contradictory steadfastness-es to me alone (at the same time). Therefore, determine my qualification for one—either that Knowledge or that Action—and tell me. By which—meaning, by either Knowledge or Action, spoken by You after determining the qualification and practiced by me—I may attain, or become fit to attain, Shreyas (Liberation).

Thus, it is established that Arjuna's question arises to know the distinction in qualification, given that neither option nor combination is possible if Knowledge and Action steadfastness apply to the same qualification.

Here, the entire erroneous opinion of others has been refuted by the Commentator (Shankaracharya) with great effort, again and again, on the strength of Sruti, Smriti, and Logic; therefore, I do not set out to do that. Here, strictly the text (of the Gita) is being arranged (explained) by me, who sees the essence of the Commentator's view. The intention of the Lord is being illuminated solely for the purification of my own speech.

Thus, when Arjuna asked about the difference in qualification, the Lord gave a reply corresponding to that (in Verse 3): "In this world" which is considered as eligible for instruction, for the twofold people divided by pure and impure minds, a twofold (dvividha) "Nishtha" (Steadfastness/Position)—devotion to Knowledge and devotion to Action—was spoken by Me "previously" (in the previous chapter), Me who am your extreme well-wisher; and it was spoken with distinct clarity. The implied meaning is: "Do not be distressed by the doubt that the qualification is one (for both paths simultaneously)." Addressing him as "O Sinless one" (Anagha), He indicates Arjuna's fitness for instruction.

He uses the singular "Nishtha" to state that there is only one steadfastness which is of two types based on the distinction of the state of the "means" and the "end" (sadhya-sadhana), not that there are two independent steadfastness-es. And so it will be said later: "He who sees Sankhya and Yoga as one, he sees (truly)." He shows that very Nishtha in its twofold nature with "Sankhya" etc. "Sankhya" means correct understanding of the Self; for the "Sankhyas" who have attained that—who have renounced from the very stage of celibacy (Brahmacharya), whose understanding is well-determined by the science of Vedanta, who have ascended to the plane of Knowledge, and whose minds are pure—for them, the steadfastness is stated through Jnana-yoga (Yoga of Knowledge)—derived as "That by which the Brahman is yoked/realized is Yoga, i.e., Knowledge". This is described by "Restraining them all, he should sit harmonized, intent on Me" (2.61), etc.
But for the "Yogis"—those with impure minds, who have not ascended to the plane of Knowledge, who are connected with the qualification for action—the steadfastness is stated through Karma-yoga (Yoga of Action)—derived as "That by which purification of the mind is yoked/joined is Yoga, i.e., Action"—for the purpose of ascending to the plane of Knowledge through mind-purification. This is described by "For indeed, there is no greater good for a Kshatriya than a righteous war" (2.31), etc.
Therefore, there is neither a combination (Samuccaya) nor an option (Vikalpa) of Knowledge and Action. Rather, for those whose minds are purified by desireless action, Knowledge comes only through the renunciation of all actions. Thus, based on the difference in the state of purity or impurity of the mind, a single steadfastness of two kinds has been spoken to you: "This understanding has been declared to you in Sankhya, but hear this regarding Yoga." Therefore, the intention is that the instruction is not futile even if there is a difference in qualification, because both are useful for the same person based on the difference in the stage (role).

To show this very fact—that for one of impure mind, the performance of action is required until the mind is purified—He shows with thirteen verses (3.4 to 3.16) starting from "Not by non-commencement of actions..." up to "...he lives in vain, O Partha." And He shows that for the Knower of pure mind, no action whatsoever is required, with two verses (3.17-3.18) "But he who rejoices in the Self alone...". Starting from "Therefore, without attachment..." (3.19), He will show that even action, which is a cause of bondage, can become a cause of liberation through the purification of the mind and the rise of Knowledge, by the skill of absence of desire for fruits. Thereafter, raising the question "By what...?" (3.36), the Lord will say until the end of the chapter that desire-laden action is not a cause of purification due to the very defect of desire; therefore, performing actions with an absence of desire, purifying the mind, you will become qualified for Knowledge.

Moreover, implying "Because of a lack of clear understanding, my intellect is attaining delusion; therefore, command me clearly such that I may attain You," he says "Vyamishreneva" etc.

By a sentence that is "Vyamishra-iva" (as if mixed)—meaning a sentence generating doubt by sometimes praising Action and sometimes Knowledge—You "seem to delude" my intellect. The Lord's speech is indeed not mixed, but it is not understood by the souls (jivas); this is indicated by the word "iva" (as if). In "You delude" (mohayasi), the word "iva" also indicates that delusion is inappropriate in the presence of the Lord.

For that reason, determine and tell me, with a desire to give it to me, that one sentence which is of the nature of Shreyas (highest good) and which propounds Bhakti (Devotion), so that my intellect's delusion may go away; by which I may attain You.

Among the previously spoken mixed sentences, neither (Karma nor Jnana) can be the nature of Shreyas because they are deluding. In all ways, that which is of the nature of Shreyas and causes the attainment of the Lord is Devotion (Bhakti) alone. That is why in Srimad Bhagavatam, starting from "Therefore, for one engaged in My devotion..." up to "...there is Shreyas here" (11.20.31), the nature of Shreyas is not stated for all (paths like Karma/Jnana alone). Therefore, the explanation that "Determine and tell me one among the previously mentioned two" is not correct (according to this view).

"Vyamishreneva" — Although the Lord is a speaker of distinct/clear meanings, yet to me of dull intellect, the Lord's speech appears to be "as if mixed." By that, "You seem to delude my intellect." You have indeed set out to remove the confusion of my intellect, so how can You be deluding me? Therefore, I say "You seem to delude my intellect."

But if You consider that the performance of Knowledge and Action—which require different agents—is impossible for a single person [simultaneously], then in such a case, determine and tell (vada) me one of those two—either Buddhi (Knowledge) or Action—saying "This alone is suitable for Arjuna, in accordance with the state of his intellect and strength"; by which—either Knowledge or Action, one of the two—I may attain Shreyas (Liberation). This statement [requesting one] would also not be logical [if Combination/Samuccaya were the teaching].

For if Knowledge had been spoken of by the Lord as merely subsidiary (gunabhuta) to Action-steadfastness, then how could Arjuna's desire to hear be focused on "Tell me one of the two"? For the Lord did not say previously, "I will tell you only one of Knowledge or Action, not both," which would lead Arjuna to think that attaining both is impossible for himself and thus pray for only one.

(Therefore), the Lord gave the reply exactly in accordance with the question (implying the paths are distinct).

(Objection) "For indeed, there is no greater good than a righteous war..." (2.31) — by such statements, was not the superior nature of action stated by You? If this is argued, He answers with "Vyamishrena" etc.

Then Your speech is "mixed"—not definitive (naikantikam), as if generating doubt; sometimes praise of action, and sometimes praise of the renunciation of action.

"Ekam" (One) etc. By this, You seem to delude my intellect; therefore, determine that one and tell me.

व्यामिश्रेण perplexing? इव as it were? वाक्येन with speech? बुद्धिम् understanding? मोहयसि (Thou) confusest? इव as it were? मे my? तत् that? एकम् one? वद tell? निश्चित्य for certain? येन by which? श्रेयः bliss (the good or the highest)? अहम् I? आप्नुयाम् may attain.Commentary Arjuna says to Lord Krishna? Tecah me one of the two? knowledge or action? by which I may attain to the highest good or bliss or Moksha. (Cf.V.I).

'Though the Lord speaks lucidly, still, to me who am of a dull understanding, the Lord's utterance appears to be conflicting.' 'Mohayasi, You bewilder; me, any; buddhim, understanding; iva, as it were; vyamisrena iva, by that seemingly conflicting; vakyena, statement! You have surely undertaken to dispel the confusion of my understanding; but why do You bewildered (it)? Hence I say, "You bewildered my understanding, as it were."'
However, if You [In some readings, 'tvam tu, however, you', is substituted by 'tatra, as to that'.-Tr.] think that it is impossible for a single person to pursue both Knowledge and action, which can be undertaken (only) by different persons then, that being the case, vada, tell me; niscitya, for certain; tadekam, one of these, either Knowledge or action: "This indeed is fit for Arjuna, according to his understanding, strength and situation"; yena, by which, by one of either Knowledge or action; aham, I; apnuyam, may attain; sreyah, the highest Good.'
Even if Knowledge had been spoken of at all by the Lord as being subsidiary to steadfastness in action, how then could there be the desire in Arjuna to know of only one of them, as expressed in 'Tell me one of these two?' Certainly the Lord did not say, 'I shall speak of only one among Knowledge and action, but surely not of both', owing to which, Arjuna, considering it impossible for himself to acire both, should have prayed for one only!
The answer was in accordance witht the estion:

Conseently, it appears to me as if 'you confuse me with statements that seem to contradict each other.' For, firm devotion to knowledge which forms the means for the vision of the self and which is of the nature of stopping the operations of the senses on the one hand, and on the other exhortation to action which is of a nature opposite to it, i.e., knowledge, as a means to the same vision of that Atman - these statements are contradictory and confusing. Therefore tell me clearly the path following which I can take a determined course and win the Supreme Being.