Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 3

व्याख्या-- [अर्जुन युद्ध नहीं करना चाहते थे अतः उन्होंने समतावाचक 'बुद्धि' शब्दका अर्थ 'ज्ञान' समझ लिया। परन्तु भगवान्ने पहले बुद्धि और 'बुद्धियोग' शब्दसे समताका वर्णन किया था (2। 39 49 आदि) अतः यहाँ भी भगवान् ज्ञानयोग और कर्मयोग--दोनोंके द्वारा प्रापणीय समताका वर्णन कर रहे हैं।]

प्रश्नके अनुसार ही उत्तर देते हुए श्रीभगवान् बोले हे निष्पाप अर्जुन इस मनुष्यलोकमें शास्त्रोक्त कर्म और ज्ञानके जो अधिकारी हैं ऐसे तीनों वर्णवालोंके लिये ( अर्थात् ब्राह्मण क्षत्रिय और वैश्योंके लिये ) दो प्रकारकी निष्ठास्थिति अर्थात् कर्तव्य तत्परता पहलेसृष्टिके आदिकालमें प्रजाको रचकर उनकी लौकिक उन्नति और मोक्षकी प्राप्तिके साधनरूप वैदिक सम्प्रदायको आविष्कार करनेवाले मुझ सर्वज्ञ ईश्वरद्वारा कही गयी हैं। वह दो प्रकारकी निष्ठा कौनसी हैं सो कहते हैं जो आत्मअनात्मके विषयमें विवेकजन्य ज्ञानसे सम्पन्न हैं जिन्होंने ब्रह्मचर्यआश्रमसे ही संन्यास ग्रहण कर लिया है जिन्होंने वेदान्तके विज्ञानद्वारा आत्मतत्त्वका भलीभाँति निश्चय कर लिया है जो परमहंस संन्यासी हैं जो निरन्तर ब्रह्ममें स्थित हैं ऐसे सांख्ययोगियोंकी निष्ठा ज्ञानरूप योगसे कही है। तथा कर्मयोगसे कर्मयोगियोंकी अर्थात् कर्म करनेवालोंकी निष्ठा कही है। यदि एक पुरुषद्वारा एक ही प्रयोजनकी सिद्धिके लिये ज्ञान और कर्म दोनों एक साथ अनुष्ठान करने योग्य हैं ऐसा अपना अभिप्राय भगवान्द्वारा गीतामें पहले कहीं कहा गया होता या आगे कहा जानेवाला होता अथवा वेदमें कहा गया होता तो शरणमें आये हुए प्रिय अर्जुनको यहाँ भगवान् यह कैसे कहते कि ज्ञाननिष्ठा और कर्मनिष्ठा अलगअलग भिन्नभिन्न अधिकारियोंद्वारा ही अनुष्ठान की जानेयोग्य हैं। यदि भगावन्का यह अभिप्राय मान लिया जाय कि ज्ञान और कर्म दोनोंको सुनकर अर्जुन स्वयं ही दोनोंका अनुष्ठान कर लेगा दोनोंको भिन्न भिन्न पुरुषोंद्वारा अनुष्ठान करनेयोग्य तो दूसरोंके लिये कहूँगा। तब तो भगवान्को रागद्वेषयुक्त और अप्रामाणिक मानना हुआ। ऐसा मानना सर्वथा अनुचित है। इसलिये किसी भी युक्तिसे ज्ञान और कर्मका समुच्चय नहीं माना जा सकता। कर्मोंकी अपेक्षा ज्ञानकी श्रेष्ठता जो अर्जुनने कही थी वह तो सिद्ध है ही क्योंकि भगवान्ने उसका निराकरण नहीं किया। उस ज्ञाननिष्ठाके अनुष्ठानका अधिकार संन्यासियोंका ही है क्योंकि दोनों निष्ठा भिन्नभिन्न पुरुषोंद्वारा अनुष्ठान करनेयोग्य बतलायी गयी हैं। इस कारण भगवान्की यही सम्मति है। यह प्रतीत होता है। बन्धनके हेतुरूप कर्मोंमें ही भगवान् मुझे लगाते हैं ऐसा समझकर व्यथितचित्त हुए और मैं कर्म नहींकरूँगा ऐसा माननेवाले अर्जुनको देखकर भगवान् बोले न कर्मणामनारम्भात् इति। अथवा ज्ञाननिष्ठाका और कर्मनिष्ठाका परस्पर विरोध होनेके कारण एक पुरुषद्वारा एक कालमें दोनोंका अनुष्ठान नहीं किया जा सकता। इससे एक दूसरेकी अपेक्षा न रखकर दोनों अलगअलग मोक्षमें हेतु हैं ऐसा शंका होनेपर

Having explained the question as being opposed to 'Combination' (Samuccaya), he introduces the reply as being opposed to that very [Combination] - "Prashna" etc. In this world of action which is perceived, the people of the three castes (Traivarnikas) are qualified to perform scriptural Knowledge or Action. "Their twofold position has been spoken by Me"—thus he connects the first half of the verse with "Lokesminniti".

He explains the 'position' (sthiti) itself with "Anushtheya" (purport of what is to be practiced). Showing the context of the promulgation in the past, he qualifies the Speaker with "Sargadaviti" (In the beginning of creation). He removes the doubt regarding the teaching being incorrect with "Sarvajneneti" (By the Omniscient One). He indicates Arjuna's fitness for the Lord's instruction with "Anagheti" (O Sinless one).

"Tatra" (There) — the locative case is used in the sense of determination/selection. Knowledge, which has the Supreme Reality as its object, is alone called 'Yoga' based on the derivation "By this, one is yoked/united with Brahman"; by that [Knowledge-Yoga]. The word 'Nishtha' follows through [from the previous phrase]. Desiring to teach the means to said Knowledge, he states the meaning of the word 'Sankhya' with "Atmeti" (Knowledge of Self and non-Self).

He excludes the state of being established in action for those very people with "Brahmacharyeti" (Renouncing from the stage of celibacy itself). He refutes the idea that they are averse to Hearing (Shravana) etc. due to being subservient to Chanting (Japa) etc., with "Vedanteti" (Having meanings well-ascertained by Vedanta-vijnana). He shows that due to possessing the said qualifications, they are principal Renunciates (Paramahamsas) and are in the state of fruition, with "Paramahamseti".

Action is what is enjoined by Varna and Ashrama, known as Dharma; based on the derivation "By that, one is yoked/united with prosperity (Abhyudaya)", it is 'Yoga'; by that [Karma-Yoga], the steadfastness of the performers of action (karmis) is spoken of — showing this connection, he says "Karmaivetyadina".

Having thus explained the other words of the reply-sentence, he states the purport of that very sentence with "Yadi cheti". Anticipating that even the Lord's desired meaning might be difficult to understand, he says "Uktamiti". Anticipating that even Knowledge might be erroneous due to being baseless, he says "Vedesviti" (In the Vedas). Anticipating that the Lord might have spoken otherwise considering him not a disciple, he says "Upasannayeti" (To one who has approached for refuge). Anticipating that even so, He might have spoken otherwise due to indifference towards him, he says "Priyayeti" (To a dear one). And since He speaks of the two steadfastness-es as having different agents (performers), it follows that 'Combination' (Samuccaya) is not the scriptural meaning desired by the Lord.

(Objection) Since Arjuna acts with foresight, upon hearing about Knowledge and Action, and due to the illogicality of instructing both [separately to one person], he might conclude that the practice of 'Combination' is to be accomplished; whereas for those other than him, hearing that Knowledge and Action are to be practiced by different persons, they will practice each separately—such a view of the Lord might be imagined because of His excessive affection for Arjuna and the lack thereof for others? To this, he says "Yadi punariti".

Being an invalid authority constitutes "untrustworthiness" (anaptatvam). And it is not logical for the Lord to be untrustworthy due to possessing attachment etc., because it would contradict statements like "I am equal in all beings" (samam sarveshu bhuteshu); this he says with "Tachcheti". He concludes the result of the instruction that the two paths are to be practiced by different persons with "Tasmaditi".

The Lord gave a reply corresponding to Arjuna's question - "Loka" etc. "In this world" (Loke'smin) — meaning among the people of the three castes (Traivarnikas) qualified for scriptural practice; who are of two kinds based on the distinction of pure and impure minds; (for them) a "twofold" (dvividha) "Nishtha" — meaning the purport of what is to be practiced, distinguished by the Means (Upaya) and the Goal (Upeya) — was spoken by Me, the Omniscient Lord, "of old" (Pura), i.e., in the beginning of creation, having created the beings and revealing the tradition of the Vedic meaning which is the means for their prosperity (Abhyudaya) and liberation (Nishreyasa).

However, those who describe "Pura" as "the previous chapter" — which is contrary to the Bhashya (Shankara's commentary) — are not correct. Because, if the meaning could be carried by just "Prokta" (Spoken), then the words "Loke'smin" (In this world) and "Pura" (Of old) would become useless. Also, it would contradict the future verse "I taught this imperishable Yoga to Vivasvan..." (4.1), which clearly propounds the meaning stated in the Bhashya.

Addressing him as "O Sinless one" (Anagha), He implies: "I engage you in your own duty (Svadharma) solely for the purification of your mind, not for My own self-interest."

He states the division of the types of Nishtha with "Jnaneti". "That by which one is united with Brahman" is Yoga; Knowledge itself is Yoga = Jnana-yoga; by that, the Nishtha (steadfastness) of the "Sankhyas" — i.e., those with pure minds and discriminative knowledge of Self and non-Self — was spoken.

"That by which one is united (with Knowledge) through mind-purification" is Yoga; Action itself is Yoga = Karma-yoga; by that, the Nishtha of the "Yogis" — i.e., the performers of action (karmis) with impure internal organs — was spoken by Me. This is the meaning.

Even though Buddhi (Knowledge) is superior, because of qualification (adhikara), the Lord—having the intention "You are qualified for action, therefore I will engage you in that alone"—says "Loka" (In this world) etc.

There are indeed two types of people: those established in Knowledge by renouncing actions like household duties, such as Sanaka and others; and those established in Knowledge while remaining in that very state (of action), such as Janaka and others. This is the meaning.

"Sankhyanam" refers to the Knowers (Jnanis) like Sanaka etc. "Yoginam" refers to those following the means/methods (Upayinam) like Janaka etc.

Even though they are established in Knowledge (Jnanishthas), those who are fit for action due to their specific qualification, due to the will of the Lord, and for the sake of holding the world together (Loka-sangraha)—they too are "Yogis". "Nishtha" means position or state.

The meaning is: "You, however, are fit for Knowledge only along with action like Janaka etc., and not by the renunciation of it like Sanaka etc."

For indeed, there are those like Priyavrata who perform actions solely by the will of the Lord, yet are Knowers indeed. As it has been said: "One whose qualification for action has been instated by the will of the Lord" (Srimad Bhagavatam 5.1.23).

Here, Sri Bhagavan spoke the answer—'Loke’smin' etc. Formerly, in the previous chapter, by Me, Nishta (discipline) was spoken of as one indeed, but it is two-fold, of two kinds. Two modes of the one Brahma-nishta alone were spoken of based on the difference of eligible aspirants, but not two mutually independent paths for the attainment of Brahman—this is the sentiment.

O Anagha (Sinless), of pure inner instrument, consider the meaning of My words well—this is the meaning. He states those very two modes—'Jnanayogena' etc. For the Sankhyas—those knowing the distinction between Prakriti and Purusha, possessing the discriminative knowledge of Self and non-Self—'Jnanayoga' is that by which one yokes oneself for the sake of knowledge; [it is] the means to knowledge consisting of hearing, reflecting, and meditating on Vedanta; by that Jnanayoga, the Sankhyas attain the Nishta—the culmination—in Brahman; this is the meaning. For the Yogis—possessing the Yoga defined as "Having become equal in success and failure, equanimity is called Yoga"—by Karma Yoga; here the meaning of the word Karma Yoga is the performance of indeterminate Samadhi through twilight worship etc.; by that, Yogis attain Brahma-nishta—this is the meaning.

This is the sentiment: In this birth or in another birth, by actions performed for the pleasure of the Lord, one of purified being (Sattva), endowed with the sixfold virtues like discrimination, dispassion, control of mind etc., desirous of liberation, with mind inclined towards the inner self, becomes accomplished by hearing and reflection alone; if he is of uncollected mind prior to hearing etc., then Nididhyasana (meditation) is required for him; therefore, "The injunction of another auxiliary is by option" (Brahma Sutra 3.4.47)—thus the partial necessity of Nididhyasana was stated by the author of the Sutras; this is that path of Sankhya. Similarly, offering all actions to the Supreme Guru, even without inquiry consisting of hearing and reflection, solely through faith, determining the nature of the inner self as attribute-less Brahman from the Guru's words, free from faults like improbability etc., having understood the mode of worship of attributeless Brahman from the teacher, practicing Samadhi in the intervals of action, he directly realizes the partless nature of the inner self; this is that path of Yoga. Therefore, those who have skill in reasoning and negation are Sankhyas; those who do not have that are Yogis.

Therefore, this is a two-fold Nishta, and one should not be deluded that there are two Nishtas. As stated by Vasistha: "There are two sequences for the destruction of the mind, Yoga and Knowledge, O Raghava. Yoga is indeed the restraint of fluctuations, Knowledge is proper observation. Yoga is impossible for some, determination of Truth for some. Therefore, the Supreme God Shiva spoke of two modes." Thus. Two sequences of Brahma-realization characterized by the non-perception of the mind. In the view of the falsity of the mind etc., Knowledge alone [is the means], just as by the proper observation of the rope-snake etc. alone it disappears; like that. In the view of its reality, Yoga alone. Just as a real snake, having its movements restrained by mantras etc., perishes by itself, likewise the mind also, being restrained by Yoga, perishes. Its total excision without trace, however, is equal in both views at the end of Prarabdha Karma.

The Supreme Lord said: What was said "Pura" (before/previously) and was strictly grasped by you—even "before," in "this world" filled with diverse qualified aspirants, a twofold "Nishtha" (position) regarding Knowledge and Action was spoken by Me, strictly "unmixed" (distinct) according to qualification.

For indeed, not every worldly person in whom the desire for liberation has arisen is capable of the qualification for Jnana-yoga at that very moment. Rather, one becomes qualified for Jnana-nishtha when one's mental impurities are destroyed and senses are unperturbed, through action performed without desire for results, solely as a form of worship of the Supreme Person. "From whom is the exertion of beings... by worshipping Him through one's own duty, a man attains perfection" (Gita 18.46)—thus, it will be stated later that the sole nature of actions is the worship of the Supreme Person.

Here too (in Chapter 2), having enjoined action to be performed without desire for fruit via "Your right is to action alone" (2.47) etc., Jnana-yoga was then spoken via "When one casts off desires" (2.55) etc., for the one whose intellect has crossed beyond the delusion consisting of agitation regarding sense-objects (through that action). Therefore, the position via Jnana-yoga was stated only for the "Sankhyas", and via Karma-yoga for the "Yogis".

"Sankhya" means Buddhi (Intellect regarding the Self); those endowed with that are "Sankhyas"—meaning those endowed with an intellect that has the Self as its sole object. Those not fit for that (atadarha) are the "Yogis" qualified for Karma-yoga. Qualification for Karma-yoga is for those endowed with an intellect agitated by sense-objects; while qualification for Jnana-yoga is stated for those with unperturbed intellects. This being so, nothing contradictory has been stated here, nor anything "mixed."

Since Jnana-yoga is difficult to practice immediately for every worldly person in whom the desire for liberation has arisen, He says (the next verse).

Here, Sri Bhagavan spoke the answer—'Loke’smin' etc. This is the meaning: If two Nishtas in the form of Karma and Jnana Yoga were spoken of by Me as means to liberation mutually independent of each other, then your question 'Tell me that one which is better among the two' would be consistent; but it was not spoken so by Me; rather, by the two, one Brahma-nishta alone was spoken of. Because of the impossibility of independence of those two which are in the relation of subsidiary and principal. But only the difference of mode of the one alone was spoken of based on the difference of qualification.

In this 'Loke' (world)—aggregate of eligible aspirants, two-fold due to the pure and impure inner instrument—'Dvidha' (two kinds), i.e., those of which there are two modes; that two-fold Nishta—devotion to liberation—'Pura' (formerly), in the previous chapter, was spoken by Me, the Omniscient One; spoken clearly indeed.

He points out the two modes themselves. For the Sankhyas—those of pure inner instrument, who have ascended to the stage of Knowledge—for the maturation of Knowledge, Nishta—devotion to Brahman—was spoken of by Jnanayoga—by meditation etc.—with "Having restrained them all, one should sit yoked, intent on Me" (2.61) etc.

But for those wishing to ascend to the stage of Sankhya, for that ascension through the purification of the inner instrument, for the Yogis—those qualified for Karma Yoga which is the means to that—Nishta was spoken of by Karma Yoga—with "For a Kshatriya, there is nothing better than a righteous war" (2.31) etc.

Therefore, indeed, the Nishta, though two-fold, was spoken of only based on the difference of the state in the form of purity and impurity of the mind—with "This wisdom has been declared to you in Sankhya; but hear this in Yoga" (2.39).

Thus, when a desire for an "unmixed" (clear) sentence was expressed, the Lord, revealing the unmixed nature of what was essentially stated before, said "Lokesmin" etc. Based on the indication "Spoken by Me" (Maya prokta) and the Kaku (intonation indicating obviousness), he states the resultant meaning as "Spoken before." He explains the purport of "In this world" (asmin loke) as useful to the context with "filled with diverse qualified aspirants." By this, the possibility of a difference in qualification for Jnana-yoga and Karma-yoga, and the example of Varna, Ashrama, place, time, desire, cause, etc., which regulate the specific subjects (persons) for even mutually contradictory duties, are indicated. This very thing is intended by the word "Anagha" (Sinless). Just as in this world, being "sinless" makes you qualified for the means to liberation, while others (with desires) are qualified for desire-based actions; similarly, the "merely sinless" is qualified for Karma-yoga, while the "more sinless" (anaghatara) is qualified for Jnana-yoga—this is the appropriate prescription for each specific state by the Omniscient Physician curing the burning fever of Samsara.

He states the intention of the word "Prokta" (well-spoken), which has a prefix, with "Yathadhikaram" (According to qualification). Here, the "excellence" (prakarsha) implies not transgressing the qualification. Since the mere "twofold nature" is already known, he states the intent of saying it with "Asankirnaiva" (Strictly unmixed). "By Me" (Maya)—meaning by One who knows the differences in specific qualifications, who desires the welfare of each, and who is untouched by even a scent of error, deception, negligence, or incapacity. "If Jnana-yoga exists as superior, why should Karma-yoga be respected?" To this, he says "Nahi" (Indeed not...). The meaning is: Even when the desire for liberation has arisen, only for some—whose impurities have been scrubbed by good deeds of hundreds of past lives—is there qualification for Jnana-yoga at that very moment, as is seen; therefore, the arrangement of Jnana and Karma Yoga is based on the subject of capacity and incapacity.

(Objection) "Those who are incapable would never qualify for Jnana-yoga at any time, because the performance of Karma-yoga, stated as the cause of that capacity, is suspected to be opposed to it (Knowledge)?" To this, he answers "Anabhisamhita..." (Without desire for fruit...). It is stated as being of the nature of "worship of the Supreme Person" so that it becomes a cause for Knowledge through the unseen merit (adrishta) which is the grace of the Lord endowed with Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Compassion. Indeed, agitation of the senses is opposed to Jnana-nishtha; that agitation is rooted in mental impurities; and that (impurity) is formed of Rajas and Tamas rooted in evil karma of beginningless merit and demerit; and that is to be removed by such action which causes the rise of Sattva. Therefore, since it is the cause of "peace" which is the cause of Jnana-nishtha, it is stated that Karma-yoga is strictly favorable to it. "By Dharma, one drives away sin" (Mahanarayana Upanishad 6.50)—this is intended here. Assuming that "absence of desire for fruit" was already stated earlier, he shows what will be described regarding the attainment of perfection solely through action in the guise of worship of the Supreme Person with "Yata iti".

He clarifies the "unmixed statement" indicated by the word "Prokta" and the statement of "desireless-ness" with "Ihapi" (Here too). He recalls the meaning of verses like "When your intellect crosses the mire of delusion..." (2.52) and "Perplexed by what you have heard..." (2.53) with "Vishaya..." (Agitation regarding objects). Implying that the limitation/rule is intentional (abhiprayikam), he explains the second half with "Atah Sankhyanamevaiti" (Therefore, for the Sankhyas only...). He refutes the idea that the word "Sankhya" here refers to the specific school of philosophy (Kapila Sankhya) with "Sankhyabuddhi..." (Intellect regarding the Self...). "Atadarha" (Not fit for that)—by this, the subject of "incapacity" is indicated. "Karmayogadhikarina iti"—The word "Yoga" in "Yogi" here means Karma-yoga; the affix implies relationship, and the relationship here is of the nature of "fitness for that". Clarifying "unfitness for that" and "fitness for that", he concludes the "unmixed statement" as the result of removing the doubt of contradiction with "Vishaya..." (Agitation regarding objects...).

कर्मयोग और ज्ञानयोग को परस्पर प्रतिद्वन्द्वी मानने का अर्थ है उनमें से किसी एक को भी नहीं समझना। परस्पर पूरक होने के कारण उनका क्रम से अर्थात् एक के पश्चात् दूसरे का आश्रय लेना पड़ता है। प्रथम निष्काम भाव से कर्म करने पर मन में स्थित अनेक वासनाएँ क्षीण हो जाती हैं। इस प्रकार मन के निर्मल होने पर उसमें एकाग्रता और स्थिरता आती है जिससे वह ध्यान में निमग्न होकर परमार्थ तत्त्व का साक्षात् अनुभव करता है।विदेशी संस्कृति के लोग हिन्दू धर्म को समझने में बड़ी कठिनाई का अनुभव करते हैं। साधनों की विविधता और परस्पर विरोधी प्रतीत होने वाले उपदेशों को पढ़कर उनकी बुद्धि भ्रमित हो जाती है। परन्तु केवल इसी कारण से हिन्दू धर्म को अवैज्ञानिक कहने में उतनी ही बड़ी और हास्यास्पद त्रुटि होगी जितनी चिकित्साशास्त्र को विज्ञान न मानने में केवल इसीलिए कि एक ही चिकित्सक एक ही दिन में विभिन्न रोगियों को विभिन्न औषधियों द्वारा उपचार बताता है।अध्यात्म साधना करने के योग्य साधकों में दो प्रकार के लोग होते हैं क्रियाशील और मननशील। इन दोनों प्रकार के लोगों के स्वभाव में इतना अन्तर होता है कि दोनों के लिये एक ही साधना बताने का अर्थ होगा किसी एक विभाग के लोगों को निरुत्साहित करना और उनकी उपेक्षा करना। गीता केवल हिन्दुओं के लिये ही नहीं वरन् समस्त मानव जाति के कल्याणार्थ लिखा हुआ शास्त्र है। अत सभी के उपयोगार्थ उनकी मानसिक एवं बौद्धिक क्षमताओं के अनुरूप दोनों ही वर्गों के लिये साधनायें बताना आवश्यक है।अत भगवान् यहाँ स्पष्ट कहते हैं कि क्रियाशील स्वभाव के मनुष्य के लिये कर्मयोग तथा मननशील साधकों के लिये ज्ञानयोग का उपदेश किया गया है। पुरा शब्द से वह यह इंगित करते है कि ये दो मार्ग सृष्टि के आदिकाल से ही जगत् में विद्यमान हैं।इस श्लोक में प्रथम बार भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण अपने वास्तविक परिचय की एक झलकमात्र दिखाते हैं। यदि गीतोपदेश देवकीपुत्र कृष्ण नामक किसी र्मत्य पुरुष का ही दिया होता तो अधिक से अधिक उसमें उस व्यक्ति की बुद्धि द्वारा समझे हुए सिद्धांत ही होते जिनका आधार जीवन के उसके स्वानुभव मात्र होते। जीवन में अनुभव किये तथ्यों में परिवर्तित होते रहने का विशेष गुण होता है और इसीलिये जब वे बदलते हैं तो हमारा पूर्व का निष्कर्ष भी परिवर्तित हो जाता है। परिवर्तित सामाजिक राजनैतिक आर्थिक परिस्थितियों एवं विज्ञान के क्षेत्र में हुई प्रगति के साथ समाजशास्त्र अर्थशास्त्र एवं विज्ञान के अगणित पूर्वप्रतिपादित सिद्धांत कालबाह्य हो चुके हैं। यदि गीता में कृष्ण नामक किसी मनुष्य की बुद्धि से पहुँचे हुए निष्कर्ष मात्र होते तो वह कालबाह्य होकर अब उसके अवशेष मात्र रह गए होते यहाँ श्रीकृष्ण स्पष्ट रूप से कहते हैं सृष्टि के आदि में (पुरा) ये दो मार्ग मेरे द्वारा कहे गये थे। इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि यहाँ भगवान् वृन्दावन के नीलवर्ण गोपाल गोपियों के प्रिय सखा अथवा अपने युग के महान् राजनीतिज्ञ के रूप में नहीं बोल रहे थे। किन्तु भारतीय इतिहास के एक स्वस्वरूप के ज्ञाता तत्त्वदर्शी उपदेशक सिद्ध पुरुष एवं ईश्वर के रूप में उपदेश दे रहे थे। उस क्षण न तो वे अर्जुन के सारथि के रूप में न एक सखा के रूप में और न ही पाण्डवों के शुभेच्छु के रूप में बात कर रहे थे। उन्हें अपने पारमार्थिक स्वरूप जगत् के अधिष्ठान कारण के रूप में पूर्ण भान था। काल और कारण के अतीत सत्यस्वरूप में स्थित हुए वे इन दो मार्गों के आदि उपदेशक के रूप में अपना परिचय देते हैं।कर्मयोग लक्ष्य प्राप्ति का क्रमिक साधन है साक्षात् नहीं। अर्थात् वह ज्ञान प्राप्ति की योग्यता प्रदान करता है जिससे ज्ञानयोग के द्वारा सीधे ही लक्ष्य की प्राप्ति होती है। इसे समझाने के लिए भगवान् कहते हैं

Sri Bhagavan, however, gives the answer—'Loke’smin' etc.

In the world, this two-fold path is well-known—Knowledge is principal for the Sankhyas, and Action for the Yogis.

But by Me, that Nishta was spoken of as one indeed, because the principle of Consciousness is constituted of Knowledge and Action—this is the sentiment.

If the question is such (as stated previously), then how does the reply-sentence fit, since it mentions a twofold nature of Nishtha? To this, stating the intention, he introduces the verse with "Jyayastve'pi" (Even though superior...). What was said, that "Buddhi (Knowledge) is superior to desire-laden action," is exactly so (true). Still, I urge you there in the "optional" (vaikalpika) action like war. Why? "Because of [your] authoritative qualification (adhikarikarvat)"—considering that you are qualified for action, even though it causes distraction and is optional. Here is the sequence of the answer: Sacrifices etc. and wars etc. enjoined by the three stages of life (Ashramas) are not purely for desires; but by the will of the doer, they can be for heaven etc., or for Knowledge etc. Therefore, even though Buddhi is superior to desire-laden action, since war is possible to be performed for the sake of Buddhi (Knowledge), engaging you in it is not illogical.

(Objection) "Without the duties of a renunicate (Yati), what is the use of this engagement?" (Reply) The right to accept the Yati-ashrama belongs only to those who are unqualified (for worldly preservation), not to the "Adhikarikas" (those with a special cosmic commission/office). For them, the rule of the Lord is that without abandoning the householder stage etc., the actions enjoined therein must be performed with desireless-ness; and you are an "Adhikarika".

(Grammatical note on the word 'Adhikarika').

How is this intention obtained from the verse? He explains with "Dvividha api". If the explanation is simply "Nishtha is twofold," it implies that both are possible for the same person in sequence, and thus the intended meaning is not obtained; hence it is explained this way. The meaning of "api" (also/even) is that it is not that there are only one kind, the Sankhyas alone. He states the twofold nature with examples—"Grihasthadi" etc.

It should be understood as "By accepting the Yati-ashrama" also. "Jnanishthah"—those endowed with means of knowledge solely through actions enjoined in the Yati-ashrama behave like Sanaka and others; thus "like Sanaka etc." Similarly, "like Janaka etc." "Tat-stha eva"—remaining in the householder stage etc. alone, endowed with means of knowledge like war which are its duties. Saying "There are also twofold people" might imply a duality of "those on the path of action" and "those on the path of knowledge." To remove this, he says "Maddharma" (My Dharma). The construction is: "People established in the path of Knowledge, and thus established in My Dharma alone, are also of two kinds." How is that? To this expectation, there are two sentences in the reply.

To remove any other understanding of the two terms "Of the Sankhyas" and "Of the Yogis," he explains "Sankhyanam". "Sankhya" is perfect knowledge (Samyak-khyati); those who exist in that are "Sankhyas"—meaning those Knowers, established in Knowledge. (Objection) Janaka and others are also established in Knowledge, so how are they "Yogis"? To this he says "Jnanishtha api". They are "Karma-yogya"—fit for actions of householders etc. (Objection) Why shouldn't the words "Sankhya" and "Yoga" take their well-known meanings (Kapila/Patanjali)? To this, with the sense of "words regarding liberation," he says "Nishtha" means "Sthiti" (State/Position)—implying "in one's own nature" (svarupena).

(Objection) Let the meaning of the verse be so, but "Because of authoritative qualification" etc. is not heard here (in the text)? To this, supplying the words, he says "Tvam tu" (But you...). "Sakarma"—having actions of householder etc. (Objection) This explanation would hold if such people were proven to exist who, even though established in Knowledge, have a right only in householder actions and not in Yati-ashrama actions. For Janaka and others, it is only proven that they "did not" perform Yati-ashrama, not that they had "no right" to it? To this he says "Santi hi" (Indeed there are). "In whom the qualification for action has been instated"—meaning the qualification for householder action; he is "tathokta" (so described). For Priyavrata indeed desired to accept the Yati-ashrama but was prevented by Hiranyagarbha (Brahma) through the reasoning of his "Authoritative Office" (Adhikarikativa)—this is what is being said.

(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.

Thus, to remove Arjuna's delusion, Krishna states the answer to the question with "Lokesmin" etc. "O Sinless one" (Anagha)—meaning sinless and fit to hear My words; by Me, in "this world" (the world devoted to activity), a twofold Nishtha (position/steadfastness) was spoken "Pura" (previously/before)—spoken before you for the purpose of establishing the qualification for Devotion (Bhakti), and not for you (to practice)—this is the purport.

He clarifies the twofold nature itself with "Jnanayogena" etc. For the "Sankhyas"—meaning for the Sankhyas who have the knowledge of the Lord as the Self of all everywhere—Brahman-steadfastness (Brahma-nishtha) was spoken through Jnana-yoga. For the "Yogis"—meaning the worshippers of the Lord—Brahman-steadfastness was spoken through Yoga (Karma-yoga).

The two steadfastness-es were spoken for the purpose of knowing their nature, not for you (to follow)—this is the meaning.

In this world—for the three castes qualified for the performance of scriptural meaning—a two-fold—of two kinds—Nishtha (steadfastness/state)—commitment to what is to be performed—was spoken formerly—in the beginning of creation—having created beings, and revealing the tradition of Vedic meaning which is the means for their attainment of prosperity and the highest good—by Me, the Omniscient Lord, O Anagha (sinless).

There, what is that two-fold Nishtha? [He] says—There, by Jnanayoga—Knowledge itself is Yoga; by that—for the Sankhyas—those possessing the discriminative knowledge of the Self and non-Self, who have renounced from the stage of celibacy itself, who have ascertained the meaning through the knowledge of Vedanta, the Paramahamsa wandering ascetics, established in Brahman alone—Nishtha was spoken. By Karmayoga—Action itself is Yoga, Karmayoga; by that Karmayoga—for the Yogis—the performers of action—Nishtha was spoken; this is the meaning.

And if it were desired by the Lord, or spoken, or about to be spoken in the Gitas and Vedas, that Knowledge and Action are to be performed conjointly by one person for one human goal—how [then] here to Arjuna, who has approached [Him] and is dear, would He speak of the disciplines of Knowledge and Action as having distinct, different agents? If again, it is imagined to be the Lord's view that 'Arjuna, having heard both Knowledge and Action, will himself perform [both], but for others I will speak of them as to be performed by different persons'—then the Lord would be imagined as possessing attachment and aversion and as non-authoritative. And that is improper. Therefore, by any logic whatsoever, there is no combination of Knowledge and Action.

And that which was said by Arjuna—the superiority of Buddhi over Action—that also stands [confirmed] because of non-refutation. And the fact that Jnananishtha is to be practiced only by Sannyasis [is established] because of the statement of its performance by different persons. It is understood that this alone is approved by the Lord.

And seeing Arjuna, whose mind was dejected thinking 'You engage me in action which is the cause of bondage' and thinking 'I shall not undertake action,' the Lord said—'Not by non-commencement of actions.'

Or else—since the disciplines of Knowledge and Action are impossible to be performed simultaneously by one person due to mutual contradiction, and [since] the causality for the human goal pertains to them being independent of each other—intending to show this meaning: that the causality of the discipline of Action for the human goal is through being the cause of the attainment of the discipline of Knowledge, not independently; whereas the discipline of Knowledge, having attained its nature through the means of the discipline of Action, is the cause of the human goal independently, not depending on another—the Lord said.

Here, giving the answer, the Supreme Lord said "Lokesmin" (In this world) etc.

What was stated earlier was not correctly grasped by you; because in this world, a twofold Nishtha (steadfastness/position) was spoken by Me of old. For those who are "Sankhyas," a state consisting of total renunciation is stated through Jnana Yoga; and for those who are qualified for the said Yoga (Action), the state is stated through Karma Yoga of the described kind.

Everything is proper only in accordance with one's own qualification; therefore, confusion of the intellect should not be created.

Indeed, difference in qualification is accepted by all; for this very reason, sometimes Knowledge and sometimes Devotion are independent causes of the Supreme Goal. Thus, the means to Liberation are stated to be Yoga (Action), Knowledge, and Devotion.

लोके in world? अस्मिन् in this? द्विविधा twofold? निष्ठा path? पुरा previously? प्रोक्ता said? मया by Me? अनघ O sinless one? ज्ञानयोगेन by the path of knowledge? सांख्यानाम् of the Sankhyas? कर्मयोगेन by the path of action? योगिनाम् of the Yogins.Commentary The path of knowledge of the Sankhyas (Jnana Yoga) was described by Lord Krishna in chapter II? verses 11 to 38 the path of action (Karma Yoga) from 40 to 53.Pura Prokta may also mean In the beginning of creation the twofold path was given by Me to this world.Those who are endowed with the four means and who have sharp? subtle intellect and bold understanding are fit for Jnana Yoga. Those who have a tendency or inclination for wok are fit for Karma Yoga. (The four means are discrimination? dispassion? sixfold virutes? and longing for liberation. The sixfold virtues are control of the mind? control of the senses? fortitude (endurance)? turning away from the objects of the world? faith and tranillity.)It is not possible for a man to practise the two Yogas simultaneously. Karma Yoga is a means to an end. It purifies the heart and prepares the aspirant for the reception of knowledge. The Karma Yogi should take up Jnana Yoga as soon as his heart is purified. Jnana Yoga takes the aspirant directly to the goal without any extraneous help. (Cf.V.5).

Anagha, O unblemished one, O sinless one; [This word of address suggests that Arjuna is alified to receive the Lord's instruction.] dvividha, two kinds of ; nistha, steadfastness, persistence in what is undertaken; asmin loke, in this world, for the people of the three castes who are alified for following the scriptures; prokta, were spoken of; maya, by Me, the omniscient God, who had revealed for them the traditional teachings of the Vedas, which are the means of securing prosperity and the highest Goal; pura, in the days of yore, in the beginning the creation, after having brought into being the creatures.
Now then, which is that steadfastness of two kinds? In answer the Lord says: The steadfastness jnanayogena, through the Yoga of Knowledge-Knowledge itself being the Yoga [Here jnana, Knowledge, refers to the knowledge of the supreme Reality, and Yoga is used in the derivative sense of 'that (Knowledge) through which one gets united with Brahman'.]-; had been stated sankhyanam, for the men of realization-those possessed of the Knowledge arising from the discrimination with regard to the Self and the not-Self, those who have espoused monasticism from the stage of Celibacy; itself, those to whom the entity presented by the Vedantic knowledge has become fully ascertained (see Mu. 3.2.6)-,the monks who are known as the parama-hamsas, those who are established in Brahman alone. And the steadfastness karma-yogena, through the Yoga of Action-action itself being the Yoga [Yoga here means 'that through which one gets united with, comes to have, prosperity', i.e. such actions as go by the name of righteousness and are prescribed by the scriptures.] had been stated yoginam, for the yogis, the men of action (rites and duties). This is the idea.
Again, had it been intended or stated or if it will be stated in the Gita by the Lord-and if it has also been so stated in the Vedas-that Knowledge and action are to be practised in combination by one and the same person for attaining the same human Goal, why then should He here tell His dear supplicant Arjuna, that steadfastness in either Knowledge or action is to be practised only by different persons who are respectively alified? If, on the other hand, it be supposed that the Lord's idea is, 'After hearing about both Knowledge and action, Arjuna will himself practise them (in combination); but, to others, I shall speak of them as being meant to be pursued by different persons', then the Lord would be imagined to be unreliable, being possessed of likes and dislikes! And that is untenable.
So, from no point of view whatsoever can there be a combination of Knowledge and action. And what has been said by Arjuna regarding superiority of Wisdom over action, that stands confirmed for not having been refuted; and (it also stands confirmed) that steadfastness in Knowledge is suitable for being practised by monks alone. And from the statement that they (Knowledge and action) are to be followed by different persons, it is understood that this has the Lord's approval.
Noticing that Arjuna had become dejected under the impression, 'You are urging me to that very action which is a source of bondage', and was thinking thus, 'I shall not undertake action', the Lord said, 'Na karmanam anarambhat, not by abstaining from action,' etc.
Or:-When steadfastness in Knowledge and steadfastness in action become incapable of being pursued simultaneously by one and the same person owing to mutual contradiction, then, since it may be concluded that they become the cause of attaining the human Goal independently of each other, therefore, in order to show-that the steadfastness in action is a means to the human Goal, not independently, but by virtue of being instrumental in securing steadfastness in Knowledge; and that, on the other hand, steadfastness in Knowledge, having come into being through the means of steadfastness in action, leads to the human Goal independently without anticipating anything else-,the Lord said:

The Lord said You have not properly understood what I taught you before. In this world, full of people with varying degrees of alifications, I have taught in the days of yore two ways, that of knowledge (Jnana Yoga) and that of works, according to the alifications of aspirants. There is no contradiction in this. It is not possible for all people of the world in whom the desire for release has arisen, to become capable immediately for the practice of Jnana Yoga. But he who performs the worship of the Supreme Person without desire for fruits and thery gets completely rid of inner impurities and keeps his senses unagitated - he becomes competent for the path of knowledge.
That all activities are for performing the worship of the Supreme Person will be taught in the Gita verse, 'He from `whom the activities of all beings arise and by whom all this is pervaded - by worshipping Him with his duty man reaches perfection' (18.46). Earlier also performance of activities without any attachment to the fruits is enjoined by the verse beginning with. 'You have the right to work alone ৷৷.' (2.47). Next for those whose intellect has been redeemed by this kind of discipline, is enjoined Jnana Yoga by the words, 'When a man renounces all the desires ৷৷.' (2.55).
Conseently, firm devotion to Jnana Yoga is taught only to the Sankhyas, i.e., those persons who are competent to follow the discipline of the knowledge of the self, and Karma Yoga to Yogins, i.e., to those competent for the path of work. Sankhya means Buddhi and those who are endowed with the Buddhi (intellectual or mental disposition) having only the self for its object, are Sankhyans. Therefore those who are not fit for this are alified for Karma Yoga. Those who are possessed of Buddhi which is agitated by objects of the senses, are the persons alified for Karma Yoga, whereas those whose Buddhi is not thus agitated, are alified for Jnana Yoga. Therefore nothing contradictory and confusing is taught.
It is said in the next stanza that Jnana Yoga is difficult to practise all at once, even when the desire for release arises in any worldy person: