श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता

मूल श्लोकः

अर्जुन उवाच

ज्यायसी चेत्कर्मणस्ते मता बुद्धिर्जनार्दन।

तत्किं कर्मणि घोरे मां नियोजयसि केशव।।3.1।।

 

Hindi Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Harikrishnadas Goenka

।।3.1।।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।

English Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary By Swami Gambirananda

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,