Sanskrit
ज्यायसी चेत्कर्मणस्ते मता बुद्धिर्जनार्दन । तत्किं कर्मणि घोरे मां नियोजयसि केशव ॥
jyāyasī cet karmaṇas te matā buddhir janārdana tat kiṃ karmaṇi ghore māṃ niyojayasi keśava
Translation
If it be thought by Thee that knowledge is superior to action, O Janârdana, why dost Thou, O Keshava, enjoin on me this terrible action?
Annie Besant · The Bhagavad-Gita, translated by Annie Besant (4th ed., 1922) — Wikisource · Public Domain
Explanation
Arjuna reopens the question that chapter 2 left hanging: if buddhi — understanding, discernment — is superior to karma, why does Krishna keep steering him toward the “terrible action” of killing his own kin? It’s a fair challenge to Krishna’s own rhetoric, since 2.49 had already called action inferior to the yoga of intellect. The whole of chapter 3 is Krishna’s answer to this single objection, so it’s worth treating verse 1 as the chapter’s thesis question rather than a throwaway complaint. The confusion is genuine, not obstinate: Arjuna has heard BG 2.49 rank action below buddhi-yoga and BG 2.47 command him to act, and cannot see how both hold. Krishna’s reply, from BG 3.3, is that they were never rival paths.
Study deeper
Word by word
- jyāyasī cetज्यायसी चेत्
- if [it is] better (jyāyasī + cet)
- karmaṇas te matā buddhirकर्मणस् ते मता बुद्धिः
- than action, in your view, is understanding (karmaṇaḥ + te + matā + buddhiḥ)
- janārdanaजनार्दन
- O Janārdana
- tat kiṃतत् किं
- then why (tat + kim)
- karmaṇi ghoreकर्मणि घोरे
- to this terrible action (karmaṇi + ghore)
- māṃमां
- me
- niyojayasiनियोजयसि
- do you urge
- keśavaकेशव
- O Keśava
Commentary
Site Commentary
Arjuna isn’t backsliding into the confusion chapter 2 resolved — he’s doing something more exacting: holding Krishna to a contradiction between what Krishna said in 2.49 and what he is now asking him to do. The whole chapter that follows owes its existence to Arjuna refusing to let an inconsistency slide just because it came from his teacher. Noticing a teacher’s contradiction and saying so, rather than quietly re-explaining it away, is often what pulls a real answer out of them.
Original commentary written for this site · © Amit Singh — original commentary
Concepts
Apply this verse
Lessons
Personal
- When you notice someone whose guidance you trust contradicting something they told you earlier, name the specific gap instead of quietly reinterpreting it yourself — Arjuna's plain challenge is what forces Krishna's real answer, and a swallowed contradiction rarely resolves on its own.
Professional
- When a leader's current directive seems to contradict a principle they stated earlier, name the specific contradiction rather than silently complying or silently resenting it — direct pushback of this kind produces a coherent answer, not two conflicting instructions left standing side by side.
Family & Social
- If someone close to you gives advice that contradicts something they said before, point out the specific gap instead of just following whichever version came last — naming the inconsistency respects them more than silent compliance, and it's often what gets you their real answer.
Ask yourself
A few ways to take this verse past reading. Ticks and the note stay in this browser.