{ "verse_id": "2.3", "mūla": { "devanāgarī": "क्लैब्यं मा स्म गमः पार्थ नैतत् त्वय्य् उपपद्यते | क्षुद्रं हृदय-दौर्बल्यं त्यक्त्वोत्तिष्ठ परंतप", "iast": "klaibyaṃ mā sma gamaḥ pārtha naitat tvayy upapadyate | kṣudraṃ hṛdaya-daurbalyaṃ tyaktvottiṣṭha paraṃtapa", "chapter_position": "Chapter 2 (Sāṅkhya-Yoga (The Yoga of Knowledge)), verse 3", "speaker": "Krishna", "addressed_to": "Arjuna" }, "word_by_word": [ { "surface_form": "klaibyam", "lemma": "klaibya", "grammar": "accusative neuter singular noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "क्लैब्यम्" }, { "surface_form": "mā", "lemma": "mā", "grammar": "", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "मा" }, { "surface_form": "sma", "lemma": "sma", "grammar": "", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "स्म" }, { "surface_form": "gamaḥ", "lemma": "√gam", "grammar": "past jus 2nd person singular verb", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "गमः" }, { "surface_form": "pārtha", "lemma": "pārtha", "grammar": "vocative masculine singular noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [ { "sense": "पृथातनय नहि त्वयि महेश्वरेणापि कृताहवे प्रख्यातपौरुषे महामहिमन्येतदुपपद्यते", "school": "advaita", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "anandgiri" ] }, { "sense": "क्लैब्यं कातर्यं मा स्म गमः न प्राप्नुहि", "school": "bhakti", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "sridhara" ] }, { "sense": "पृथातनय पृथया देवप्रसादलब्धे तत्तनयमात्रे वीर्यातिशयस्य प्रसिद्धत्वात्पृथातनयत्वेन क्लैब्यायोग्य इत्यर्थः", "school": "advaita-bhakti", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "madhusudan" ] } ], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "पार्थ" }, { "surface_form": "na", "lemma": "na", "grammar": "", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "न" }, { "surface_form": "etat", "lemma": "etad", "grammar": "nominative neuter singular noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "एतत्" }, { "surface_form": "tvayi", "lemma": "tvad", "grammar": "locative singular noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "त्वयि" }, { "surface_form": "upapadyate", "lemma": "upa-√pad", "grammar": "present indicative 3rd person singular verb", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "उपपद्यते" }, { "surface_form": "kṣudram", "lemma": "kṣudra", "grammar": "accusative neuter singular noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "क्षुद्रम्" }, { "surface_form": "hṛdaya", "lemma": "hṛdaya", "grammar": "compound (compound member)", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "हृदय" }, { "surface_form": "daurbalyam", "lemma": "daurbalya", "grammar": "accusative neuter singular noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "दौर्बल्यम्" }, { "surface_form": "tyaktvā", "lemma": "tyaj", "grammar": "conv", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "त्यक्त्वा" }, { "surface_form": "uttiṣṭha", "lemma": "ut-√sthā", "grammar": "present imperative 2nd person singular verb", "senses_attested_in_panel": [], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "उत्तिष्ठ" }, { "surface_form": "paraṃtapa", "lemma": "paraṃtapa", "grammar": "vocative masculine singular noun", "senses_attested_in_panel": [ { "sense": "परं शत्रुं तापयतीति तथा संबोध्यते", "school": "advaita", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "anandgiri" ] }, { "sense": "परं शत्रुं तापयतीति तथा संबोध्यते", "school": "advaita-bhakti", "weight": 0.8, "witnesses": [ "madhusudan" ] } ], "theme_lists": [], "surface_devanagari": "परंतप" } ], "intertextual_panel": [ { "verse": "18.6", "type": "long-distance thematic echo", "score": 0.8877, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8177, "theme_graph": 1.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 12.5574, "stem_prefix": 6.0 } }, { "verse": "8.15", "type": "shared-vocabulary echo", "score": 0.8752, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8352, "theme_graph": 0.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 6.5994, "stem_prefix": 4.0 } }, { "verse": "18.72", "type": "long-distance thematic echo", "score": 0.8738, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8338, "theme_graph": 1.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 7.2061, "stem_prefix": 3.0 } }, { "verse": "9.13", "type": "long-distance thematic echo", "score": 0.8732, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8332, "theme_graph": 1.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 6.1868, "stem_prefix": 3.0 } }, { "verse": "18.73", "type": "shared-vocabulary echo", "score": 0.8725, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8325, "theme_graph": 0.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 5.9185, "stem_prefix": 4.0 } }, { "verse": "3.22", "type": "cross-chapter thematic parallel", "score": 0.8713, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8213, "theme_graph": 1.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 6.8677, "stem_prefix": 4.0 } }, { "verse": "16.4", "type": "long-distance thematic echo", "score": 0.8692, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8392, "theme_graph": 1.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 4.2941, "stem_prefix": 2.0 } }, { "verse": "9.3", "type": "long-distance thematic echo", "score": 0.8668, "feature_breakdown": { "cosine": 0.8268, "theme_graph": 1.0, "vocative": 0.0, "substring": 0.0, "lemma_overlap": 7.7795, "stem_prefix": 3.0 } } ], "doctrinal_projections": { "advaita": { "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)", "key_cross_references": [], "witness_passages": [ "shankara_2.3", "anandgiri_2.3" ], "score": 0.5, "english_rendering": "Śaṅkarācārya passes in silence over this verse — his commentary opens only at 2.10, where Kṛṣṇa himself will speak. Yet the verse's logic fits the Advaita trajectory precisely: klaibya (unmanliness, loss of ojas) is a failure of viveka (discrimination), not of emotion, and Kṛṣṇa's imperative 'rise' points toward the self-knowledge that alone removes the root of grief. The Advaita reading therefore holds that no real command is issued here — only a diagnostic: this hṛdaya-daurbalya (weakness of heart) is itself the symptomatic face of avidyā (ignorance of the ātman), whose cure is not willpower but jñāna (knowledge).", "divergence_note": "No direct bhāṣya by Śaṅkara on 2.3; rendering inferred from his commentary beginning at 2.10, where the Advaita framing of grief as avidyā is established. The diagnostic reading — grief as misidentification of ātman with body — governs the Advaita interpretation of all pre-2.10 exchanges." }, "viśiṣṭādvaita": { "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)", "key_cross_references": [], "witness_passages": [ "ramanuja_2.3", "vedantadeshika_2.3" ], "score": 0.5, "english_rendering": "Rāmānuja reads the Lord's rebuke as precise: the grief that arose in Arjuna's heart while he sat before the armies — kuto'yam asthāne samutthitaḥ śokaḥ, 'whence has this grief arisen in an improper place?' — is three-layered in its condemnation: it opposes welfare in the worlds beyond, it brings disgrace, and it is utterly petty (atikṣudram), nothing more than hṛdaya-daurbalya (heart-weakness). To rise for battle is therefore not mere worldly valor; abandoning this misplaced grief is the precondition for the kainkarya (service-action) that constitutes devotion to Bhagavān. The epithet Pārtha — 'son of Pṛthā' — reminds Arjuna that his very birth carried divine grace, making this klaibya (unmanliness) a contradiction of his own constituted nature.", "divergence_note": "Rāmānuja supplies the fullest direct commentary of any school on this verse. His tri-layered condemnation of the grief — parama-loka opposition, dishonor, pettiness — is specific to Viśiṣṭādvaita's reading of action as service. Advaita would locate the failure in avidyā rather than in moral impropriety; Madhva would stress dependence on Hari's will; Rāmānuja locates it in Arjuna's deviation from svabhāva (constituted nature) as a devotee-warrior." }, "dvaita": { "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)", "key_cross_references": [], "witness_passages": [ "madhva_2.3", "jayatirtha_2.3" ], "score": 0.5, "english_rendering": "Madhvācārya's commentary does not open until 2.11, yet the Dvaita reading of this verse is determined by its foundational tenet: the jīva (individual soul) is eternally and irrevocably distinct from and dependent on Hari, and every act — including the act of rising to fight — is acceptable only as worship in that asymmetric relationship. Klaibya here is not primarily cowardice but a failure of the jīva's constitutional posture: the deluded jīva is claiming an autonomy of grief that belongs to no finite being. Kṛṣṇa's imperative 'uttistha (rise)' is Hari's direct command to a servant, and Arjuna's compliance or non-compliance is itself a test of tattva-jñāna (knowledge of the five real distinctions), which Kṛṣṇa will provide only beginning at 2.11.", "divergence_note": "No direct bhāṣya by Madhvācārya on 2.3; rendering inferred from Dvaita's governing principles and from Madhva's commentary opening at 2.11. The Dvaita emphasis on the jīva's dependent status distinguishes it sharply from Advaita (where the jīva-Brahman distinction is ultimately unreal) and from Viśiṣṭādvaita (where the jīva is a mode of Brahman)." }, "śuddhādvaita": { "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)", "key_cross_references": [], "witness_passages": [ "vallabha_2.3" ], "score": 0.5, "english_rendering": "Vallabha comments on 2.2 and 2.3 together: the one who 'slays the honey of delusion' (mohama-dhu-hantā) speaks these words, and his first address to Arjuna is to his pure essential form — 'hे arjuna śuddha-svarūpa, O Arjuna of pure essence.' The question 'whence has this impurity (kaśmalam) come upon you in this moment of crisis (viṣame saṅkaṭe)?' is not merely moral reproof; in Śuddhādvaita it is Kṛṣṇa actively withdrawing the obscuring grace (māyā-prasāda) that temporarily veiled Arjuna's natural identity as a participant in Kṛṣṇa's own līlā (divine play). The command to rise is Kṛṣṇa inviting Arjuna back into the pravāha (current) of puṣṭi (divine nourishment) — the grief was real, but it was also Kṛṣṇa's instrument for initiating the teaching.", "divergence_note": "Vallabha's commentary bundles 2.2–2.3 and addresses Arjuna's pure essential nature rather than his moral failure — a reading impossible in Dvaita (where the jīva is inherently finite-dependent) and in Advaita (where 'pure essence' would point away from individuality entirely). The kaśmala (impurity) is not ethical but ontological: a momentary occlusion of Arjuna's natural immersion in Kṛṣṇa's flow." }, "bhakti": { "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)", "key_cross_references": [], "witness_passages": [ "sridhara_2.3" ], "score": 0.5, "english_rendering": "Śrīdhara Svāmī reads each epithet as a doing-word: 'Pārtha' — son of Pṛthā — signals that this klaibya (pusillanimity, cowardice) is out of character, because such behavior does not befit you (tvayy etan nopapadyate); 'Paraṃtapa' — you who burn the foe — signals that the capacity to rise is already constitutively yours, the very quality by which you are named. Hṛdaya-daurbalya (weakness of heart) is glossed as kātarya (timidity, faint-heartedness), described as kṣudra (petty, trivial), meaning it can be discarded like chaff; the imperative is yuddha-āya uttistha — rise for battle — where the compound makes clear that rising and fighting are not two acts but one orientation. The tone is balanced: neither the harsh dialectic of Śaṅkara nor the rapture of Vallabha, but a calm clarification of what the moment actually calls for.", "divergence_note": "Śrīdhara's bhāṣya is the most syntactically careful of the four available here. His gloss of klaibya as kātarya (not merely physical unmanliness but the psychological condition of faint-heartedness) is distinctive and shapes his reading of the imperative as corrective naming rather than moral condemnation." }, "advaita-bhakti": { "reading_summary": "(reading summary extraction pending; ENABLE_READING_SUMMARIES=true to generate)", "key_cross_references": [], "witness_passages": [ "madhusudan_2.3" ], "score": 0.5, "english_rendering": "Madhusūdana Sarasvatī names the condition with philosophical precision: klaibya is klība-bhāva (the state of being unmanned), defined as adhairya (lack of steadiness) specifically as the breaking of ojas, tejas, and similar powers — and Arjuna himself has confessed this exact symptom ('the bow slips from my hand, my mind whirls'). The epithet Pārtha carries argumentative weight: Pṛthā obtained her son by divine grace alone, and that grace-born son is constitutionally unfit for this klaibya — 'pṛthā-tanayatve klaibyāyogyam ityarthaḥ.' The epithet Paraṃtapa then carries the counter-weight: the man who is celebrated for having contested even Maheśvara (Śiva) in battle cannot consistently claim that steadiness is unavailable to him. What remains — the bhrama (mental whirling), the hṛdaya-daurbalya — Madhusūdana calls kṣudra in two senses simultaneously: trivially small and therefore easily removed by viveka (discrimination); 'tyaktvā vivekena apanīya, uttistha — having set it aside through discrimination, rise.'", "divergence_note": "Madhusūdana's synthesis is visible in two moves absent from the other schools: first, the explicit enumeration of ojas and tejas as the powers under threat (Advaita's philosophical vocabulary applied to what Śrīdhara treats only as kātarya); second, the dual gloss of kṣudra — moral pettiness AND metaphysical thinness — which allows viveka (Advaita's instrument) to do the work that Vallabha would assign to puṣṭi-grace and Rāmānuja would assign to recognizing svabhāva." } }, "prosodic_information": { "meter": "anuṣṭubh", "meter_shift_from_previous": false, "meter_shift_to_next": false, "pragmatic_context": { "vocative": "Pārtha (also: Paranṭapa)", "preceding_question": "", "following_response": "" } }, "theme_list_memberships": [ { "list": "त्यक्त्वोत्तिष्ठ परंतप", "role": "supporting", "other_verses_in_list": [ "2.38" ] }, { "list": "परंतप", "role": "supporting", "other_verses_in_list": [ "9.3" ] }, { "list": "पार्थ", "role": "supporting", "other_verses_in_list": [ "1.25", "1.26", "1.28", "1.29", "1.30", "2.21", "2.32", "2.39", "2.42", "2.55", "2.72", "3.16", "3.22", "3.23", "4.11", "4.33", "6.40", "7.1", "7.10", "8.8", "8.14", "8.19", "8.22", "8.27", "9.13", "9.32", "10.11", "10.24", "11.5", "11.9", "12.7", "16.4", "16.5", "16.6", "17.26", "17.28", "18.6", "18.30", "18.31", "18.32", "18.33", "18.34", "18.35", "18.72", "18.74", "18.78" ] } ], "audit_trail": { "substrate_version": "v2.6-frozen", "fitted_weights": { "a": 1.0, "b": 0.01, "e_v": 0.005, "z": 0.2, "h": 0.0, "th": 0.01 }, "corpus_provenance": { "mūla": "Belvalkar critical edition (BORI 1947), via Ambuda multi-witness", "panel_witnesses": [ "bg-mula", "bg-shankara", "bg-ramanuja", "bg-madhva", "bg-vedantadeshika", "bg-vallabha", "bg-jayatirtha", "bg-anandgiri", "bg-sridhara", "bg-madhusudan" ] }, "extraction_date": "2026-04-21", "score_methodology_documented_at": "Paper 1, Section II.B", "word_by_word_parser": "ByT5-Sanskrit-multitask (Nehrdich/Hellwig/Keutzer EMNLP 2024)", "post_generation_repairs": [ { "date": "2026-05-03", "fix": "verb-lemma-misidentification (sandhi'd compound → prefix-√root canonical)", "scope": "word_by_word[].lemma", "loci": [ "uttiṣṭha: utthā -> ut-√sthā" ] }, { "date": "2026-05-03", "fix": "verb-lemma-misidentification (broader heuristic: prefix-√root canonical for all verb-tagged tokens)", "scope": "word_by_word[].lemma", "loci": [ "gamaḥ: gam -> √gam", "upapadyate: upapad -> upa-√pad" ] } ] }, "so_what_questions": [ "Kṛṣṇa calls the grief 'petty' (kṣudra) and 'unmanning' (klaibya) — but Arjuna's grief looks like moral seriousness about killing family. How do we distinguish genuine ethical hesitation from hṛdaya-daurbalya (heart-weakness)?", "The verse doesn't explain why Arjuna should fight — it just says 'rise.' Is this an appeal to duty, to identity, to something else, and does the answer change anything about whether to trust it?", "Kṛṣṇa addresses Arjuna as both Pārtha (son of a grace-favored mother) and Paraṃtapa (scorcher of foes). What is the work of naming someone by their lineage and their capacity at the moment they are collapsing?", "If this grief was caused by 'seeing the armies' (per 2.1) — an external situation — but the problem is located in the heart (hṛdaya), does the verse imply that external circumstances never justify emotional shutdown?", "Madhusūdana says hṛdaya-daurbalya is 'kṣudra' in the sense of 'easily removed by viveka (discrimination).' Does that claim hold? Is most paralysis actually thin and dissolvable once named clearly?", "The command is uttistha (rise) — a physical posture before any philosophical instruction has been given. What does it mean that the corrective act is bodily before it is cognitive?", "Three of the six schools lack direct commentary on this verse. Does the absence of bhāṣya on a verse tell us anything about what a school considers philosophically primitive versus philosophically generative?" ], "everyday_applications": { "advaita": "When a decision — a difficult conversation, a resignation, a refusal — produces the internal sensation of collapse and inability to act, the Advaita application is not to generate courage from willpower but to ask: what misidentification is running this paralysis? The body is tired, the social role is threatened, the ego-narrative is at risk — none of these is the ātman. The practical move is not suppression but diagnostic naming: 'whose grief is this, and who is watching it?' Once the locus of the distress is seen clearly as constructed rather than ultimate, the hṛdaya-daurbalya loses its grip — not by being fought but by being seen through.", "viśiṣṭādvaita": "Rāmānuja's application is most concrete when the paralysis is rooted in relational conflict — where the thing you need to do will hurt people you love, or where grief about disappointing others prevents you from performing your actual function. His framework names that grief as triple-disqualified: it harms your own long-run welfare, it dishonors the capacities you were given, and it is small relative to the service the situation calls for. The operative question becomes: what is the kainkarya (the actual service owed) in this situation, and am I withholding it out of misplaced sentiment? Naming the withholding as 'petty' (atikṣudram) is not harsh dismissal — it is a precise diagnosis that clears the way for action that is genuinely devoted rather than sentimental.", "dvaita": "In Madhva's framework, the everyday application is for situations where you feel you have no standing to act — where the scale of the task, the inadequacy of your resources, or the presence of more capable people produces a paralysis that feels like humility but functions like abdication. Dvaita's corrective is blunt: you are a finite jīva (individual soul), permanently dependent on Hari's will, and that dependence is not a reason to withhold action — it is the only ground on which action becomes possible. The specific terror of the moment is exactly when Hari's command comes through clearly and the jīva's own calculations argue for inaction. Compliance with that command, regardless of outcome-confidence, is the practice.", "śuddhādvaita": "Vallabha's Puṣṭi-mārga application runs against both stoic and therapeutic framings: the grief was not a mistake, the breakdown was not a failure of discipline, and the recovery is not a matter of gathering resolve. Kṛṣṇa called it kaśmala (impurity or occlusion) because in Śuddhādvaita the true self is śuddha-svarūpa (pure in its essential form) and the grief was simply an interruption of the natural flow of being in Kṛṣṇa's current (pravāha). The practical application is to treat the low moment — the inability to function, the loss of ojas — not as a character deficiency to be corrected but as a temporary occlusion of puṣṭi (divine nourishment) to be recognized and released. The path back is not effort but receptivity: returning attention to the source of the current rather than analyzing the interruption.", "bhakti": "Śrīdhara's balanced application is the most directly usable in professional or civic contexts: the two epithets work as a two-step reality check. First, Pārtha — name your constituted capacity, the one that your lineage, training, and actual track record confirm. Second, Paraṃtapa — name the specific capability you are known for that is directly relevant to the present moment. The verse's structure suggests that the hṛdaya-daurbalya is often context-specific: a person is not globally weak, they are weak in this moment, for this decision. Locating the weakness as kṣudra (small, specific, not structural) and then naming the counter-capacities that are already present is sufficient. The action follows from the naming.", "advaita-bhakti": "Madhusūdana's synthesizing application is most useful when the paralysis has two simultaneous roots — philosophical confusion about what is real and an emotional collapse of ojas and tejas (vital and luminous energy). He treats both as simultaneously real and simultaneously addressable by a single instrument: viveka (discrimination), applied not as cold analysis but as the act of setting aside (apanīya) what has been identified as kṣudra. In practice this means: when you cannot act, first name what exactly has broken down (is it certainty about outcomes? fear of being seen? loss of narrative coherence?), then apply the specific discrimination that fits that disruption rather than a generic motivational overlay. The rising (uttistha) follows naturally from the seeing — the body responds when the mind has done the right diagnostic work rather than the wrong self-motivating work." }, "primary_meaning": "Don't yield to unmanliness, Partha, for it doesn't suit you. Cast off this petty weakness of heart and rise, scorcher of foes." }