व्यामिश्रेणेव वाक्येन बुद्धिं मोहयसीव मे | तदेकं वद निश्चित्य येन श्रेयोऽहमाप्नुयाम् ||३-२||
vyāmiśreṇeva vākyena buddhiṃ mohayasīva me . tadekaṃ vada niścitya yena śreyo.ahamāpnuyām ||3-2||
3.2. You appear to perplex my intellect with Your speech that looks confusing. Hence tell me, with certainty, that particular thing by which I may attain the good (emancipation).
Shri Purohit Swami
3.2 Thy language perplexes me and confuses my reason. Therefore please tell me the only way by which I may, without doubt, secure my spiritual welfare.
Sri Abhinav Gupta
3.1-2 Jyayasi etc. and Vyamisrena etc. Action has been taught and knowledge too. Now it is proper [to attach] importance not to both, but only to knowledge. Now if with the strenght of knowledge the action is to be destroyed from its very root, according to the instruction ‘The man of wisdom casts off [both the good and the bad action]’, then what is the autility of action ? This is idea of [Arjuna’s] estion. But the Bhagavat gives the answer :
3.2 Conseently, it appears to me as if ‘you confuse me with statements that seem to contradict each other.’ For, firm devotion to knowledge which forms the means for the vision of the self and which is of the nature of stopping the operations of the senses on the one hand, and on the other exhortation to action which is of a nature opposite to it, i.e., knowledge, as a means to the same vision of that Atman - these statements are contradictory and confusing. Therefore tell me clearly the path following which I can take a determined course and win the Supreme Being.
3.2 ‘Though the Lord speaks lucidly, still, to me who am of a dull understanding, the Lord’s utterance appears to be conflicting.’ ‘Mohayasi, You bewilder; me, any; buddhim, understanding; iva, as it were; vyamisrena iva, by that seemingly conflicting; vakyena, statement! You have surely undertaken to dispel the confusion of my understanding; but why do You bewildered (it)? Hence I say, “You bewildered my understanding, as it were.”’ However, if You [In some readings, ’tvam tu, however, you’, is substituted by ’tatra, as to that’.-Tr.] think that it is impossible for a single person to pursue both Knowledge and action, which can be undertaken (only) by different persons then, that being the case, vada, tell me; niscitya, for certain; tadekam, one of these, either Knowledge or action: “This indeed is fit for Arjuna, according to his understanding, strength and situation”; yena, by which, by one of either Knowledge or action; aham, I; apnuyam, may attain; sreyah, the highest Good.’ Even if Knowledge had been spoken of at all by the Lord as being subsidiary to steadfastness in action, how then could there be the desire in Arjuna to know of only one of them, as expressed in ‘Tell me one of these two?’ Certainly the Lord did not say, ‘I shall speak of only one among Knowledge and action, but surely not of both’, owing to which, Arjuna, considering it impossible for himself to acire both, should have prayed for one only! The answer was in accordance witht the estion:
3.2 You confuse my mind with statements that seem to contradict each other; tell me for certain that one way by which I could reach the highest good.
3.2 You bewilder my understanding, as it were, by a seemingly conflicting statement! Tell me for certain one of these by which I may attain the highest Good.
3.2 With this apparently perplexing speech, Thou confusest, as it were, my understanding; therefore tell me that one way for certain by which I may attain bliss.
3.2 व्यामिश्रेण perplexing? इव as it were? वाक्येन with speech? बुद्धिम् understanding? मोहयसि (Thou) confusest? इव as it were? मे my? तत् that? एकम् one? वद tell? निश्चित्य for certain? येन by which? श्रेयः bliss (the good or the highest)? अहम् I? आप्नुयाम् may attain.Commentary Arjuna says to Lord Krishna? Tecah me one of the two? knowledge or action? by which I may attain to the highest good or bliss or Moksha. (Cf.V.I).