ज्यायसी चेत्कर्मणस्ते मता बुद्धिर्जनार्दन।
तत्किं कर्मणि घोरे मां नियोजयसि केशव।।3.1।।
3.1 See Comment under 3.2
3.1 '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?
3.1 Arjuna said O Janardana (krsna), if it be Your opinion that wisdom is superior to action, why they do you urge me to horrible aciton, O Kesava ?
3.1 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,