Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 3, Verse 2: Krishna to Arjuna — Karma-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Your teaching seems to confuse me — as if the same person were prescribed two incompatible paths, jñāna (knowledge) and karma (action), in a single breath. If you hold that one person cannot simultaneously pursue both, then declare which single path fits my eligibility (adhikāra) and capacity (buddhi-śakti). Name the one — jñāna or karma — by which I, Arjuna, may attain the highest good (śreyas).

  divergence: Śaṅkara reads Arjuna's protest as a logical challenge: since jñāna-niṣṭhā and karma-niṣṭhā belong to distinct adhikāris (eligible persons), prescribing both to one person is incoherent. Arjuna's use of 'iva' (as-if) is polite — he acknowledges Kṛṣṇa cannot truly confuse, yet his own slow mind (manda-buddhi) perceives contradiction.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  You first praised the path of cessation of all sense-activity (indriya-vyāpāra-uparati) as the means for ātma-darśana, then commanded me to act — these are mutually opposed teachings and together they bewilder me. Speak one unambiguous word so I may determine what I must practice and thereby attain my own highest good.

  divergence: Rāmānuja frames the confusion as a direct logical opposition: jñāna-niṣṭhā requires withdrawal of all senses; karma is the exact reverse. A single person cannot pursue both simultaneously. Arjuna asks for one 'uncontaminated' (amiśra) instruction.

• Madhvadvaita

  Your speech — now praising *jñāna* (knowledge), now action — blurs what should remain distinct, and my *buddhi* (discerning faculty) wavers. Declare one thing with certainty, that single path by which I may attain *śreyas* (the highest good). The confusion Arjuna names is real: where *bheda* (real distinction) between the *jīva* and *Īśvara* stands firm, no blending of paths is tolerable — each *jīva*, wholly *paratantra* (eternally dependent), must receive from *svatantra* Hari a clear directive. Mixed counsel obscures that dependence and leaves the *paratantra* self without a sure footing. Speak decisively, so that this dependent self may move toward *śreyas* under Hari's unambiguous ordinance.

  divergence: Madhvācārya and Jayatīrtha are silent on this verse. The reading proceeds from *pañca-bheda* and *taratamya*: Arjuna's complaint about mixed speech is sharpest where ontological distinctions are absolute — a *paratantra* *jīva* cannot afford doctrinal ambiguity, for its every act must be directed *Hari-prītyartham* (for Hari's satisfaction). The demand for one clear path (*tad ekaṃ vada niścitya*) maps onto the dvaita insistence that *jñāna* and *karma* are not rivals but are both valid only as forms of *bhakti*-subordination to Hari.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Somewhere you exalt action, somewhere you exalt its abandonment — this mixing (vyāmiśra) plants doubt where there should be certainty. Resolve it: which single path, declared without ambiguity, leads me to śreyas?

  divergence: Vallabha's bhāṣya poses an objection: since Kṛṣṇa already called righteous battle the highest good for a kṣatriya (BG 2.31), why does he now seem to praise renunciation too? The oscillation between karma-praśaṃsā (praise of action) and karma-tyāga-praśaṃsā (praise of renunciation) is the source of the 'mixed' speech. Arjuna's request for ekam (one thing) is Vallabha's hook for the Puṣṭi resolution: single-pointed surrender to Kṛṣṇa's prasāda.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  A compassionate teacher cannot truly confuse — yet your speech oscillates between praising jñāna and praising karma, making my understanding swing between both like a pendulum. Out of that compassion, declare the single path — whichever is truly the instrument of mokṣa — so that I may practice it and be free.

  divergence: Śrīdhara names the two poles explicitly: 'kvacit karma-praśaṃsā, kvacic jñāna-praśaṃsā' (somewhere praise of karma, somewhere praise of jñāna). The 'iva' (as-if) in 'mohayas'iva' is critical: Kṛṣṇa, being supremely compassionate (parama-kāruṇika), cannot actually confuse — the confusion is Arjuna's own, arising from his unsteady mind wavering between two valid goods.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  I do not see two separate teachings; I see one teaching whose two faces you cannot yet reconcile because you have not grasped the distinction of adhikāri (eligible person). Your confusion arises from your own limitation, not from any ambiguity in Kṛṣṇa's speech — still, for my sake declare which of the two niṣṭhās (dispositions) is mine, so that I may practice it and attain mokṣa.

  divergence: Madhusūdana extends his commentary through BG 3.3 to explain: there is only ONE niṣṭhā (singular in the text), appearing as two due to differences in inner-instrument purity (śuddha vs aśuddha antaḥkaraṇa). The sharp-minded renunciant gets jñāna-niṣṭhā; the as-yet-impure practitioner gets karma-yoga as antaḥkaraṇa-śuddhi (purification of the inner instrument). Neither path is a standalone alternative — karma culminates in jñāna. Arjuna's 'iva' reflects his own defect (svāśaya-doṣa), not Kṛṣṇa's.