श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता

मूल श्लोकः

अर्जुन उवाच

ज्यायसी चेत्कर्मणस्ते मता बुद्धिर्जनार्दन।

तत्किं कर्मणि घोरे मां नियोजयसि केशव।।3.1।।


Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Shankaracharya

।।3.1।। ज्यायसी श्रेयसी चेत् यदि कर्मणः सकाशात् ते तव मता अभिप्रेता बुद्धिः ज्ञानं हे जनार्दन। यदि बुद्धिकर्मणी समुच्चिते इष्टे तदा एकं श्रेयःसाधनमिति कर्मणो ज्यायसी बुद्धिः इति कर्मणः अतिरिक्तकरणं बुद्धेरनुपपन्नम् अर्जुनेन कृतं स्यात् न हि तदेव तस्मात् फलतोऽतिरिक्तं स्यात्। तथा च कर्मणः श्रेयस्करी भगवतोक्ता बुद्धिः अश्रेयस्करं च कर्म कुर्विति मां प्रतिपादयति तत् किं नु कारणमिति भगवत उपालम्भमिव कुर्वन् तत् किं कस्मात् कर्मणि घोरे क्रूरे हिंसालक्षणे मां नियोजयसि केशव इति च यदाह तच्च नोपपद्यते। अथ स्मार्तेनैव कर्मणा समुच्चयः सर्वेषां भगवता उक्तः अर्जुनेन च अवधारितश्चेत् तत्किं कर्मणि घोरे मां नियोजयसि (गीता 3.1) इत्यादि कथं युक्तं वचनम्।।किञ्च

English Translation By Swami Gambirananda

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 ?

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,