To consider the ‘Path-of-Action’ (Karma Yoga) and the ‘Path-of-Knowledge’ (Jnana Yoga) as competitive is to understand neither of them. They, being complementary, are to be practised SERIALLY one after the other. Selfless activity gives a chance to the mind to exhaust many of its existing mental impressions. Thus purified, the mind gains such a flight and ethereal poise that it can steadily soar into the subtlest realms of meditation, and finally come to gain the experience of the transcendental Absolute.

Men belonging to foreign cultures find it very difficult to understand Hinduism when they approach it with all their native enthusiasm. They feel overwhelmed when they read of such a variety of ‘Paths’ and seemingly contradictory advices. But, to condemn Hinduism as unscientific because of this, would be a mistake, as colossal and as ludicrous as to say that medicine is no science at all, since, for each patient, the same doctor prescribes a different medicine, during a single afternoon!!

Religious men, men fit for spiritual discipline, fall under two distinct categories: the active and the contemplative. Temperamentally, these two classes fall so widely apart, that to prescribe for both of them one and the same technique for individual development, would be to discourage one section and ignore its progress. The Geeta is not merely a text-book of Hinduism but a Bible of humanity. As such, in its universal application, it has to show methods of self-development to suit the mental and intellectual temperaments of both these categories.

Therefore, Krishna clearly explains here that the two-fold path of Self-development was prescribed for the world-the ‘Path-of-Knowledge’ to the MEDITATIVE, and the ‘Path-of-Action’ to the ACTIVE. It is added that this classification and careful prescription for the two different types of men has been in existence from the very beginning of creation.

For the first time, Lord Krishna is giving us here in this stanza, a glimpse of the identity of the man who is the author of the Geeta. If it were given out by the son of Devaki, a mere mortal who lived in that age, he would at best, have given us only an intellectual theory built entirely upon the observed data. Observed data always have a knack of changing, and when they change, the final conclusions also must necessarily change. We have now a hundred different political and economic philosophies, and numberless scientific theories that have all become outmoded when the social living conditions, or the economic structure, or the collected and observed data have changed in their set up, or in their imperative messages. If the Geeta was the conclusion of a mere mortal Krishna’s intellect, the values of life preached therein would also have got outmoded and by now become fossilised!

Here, He clearly says that, at the very beginning of creation, these two ‘Paths’ were prescribed by ‘Me’; thereby indicating that Krishna is talking here not as the Blue Boy of Vrindavana — not as the Beloved of the gopis — not as the great diplomat of His age — but as a Man-of-Realisation, a Prophet, and a Seer, who lived in that period of Indian history. It is neither as Arjuna’s charioteer, nor as a friend, nor as a well-wisher of the Pandavas, that He is talking at this moment. Perfectly identifying with the spiritual dignity in Himself, experiencing His Absolute Nature, it is as the Eternal substratum for the entire PLURALISTIC world, as the Cause of all Creation, as the Might in all substances, that He is talking now. Transcending all time and causation, in a burning conviction of the lived Truth, He declares here: “At the very beginning of creation, these two ‘paths’ were given out by Me as the two possible methods by which the ACTIVE and the CONTEMPLATIVE could seek and re-discover the Eternal nature of their very Self.

“THE ‘PATH-OF-ACTION’ IS A MEANS TO AN END, NOT DIRECTLY, BUT ONLY AS A PREPARATION TO THE ‘PATH-OF-KNOWLEDGE’; WHEREAS THE LATER, WHICH IS ATTAINED BY MEANS OF THE ‘PATH-OF-ACTION,’ LEADS TO THE GOAL DIRECTLY WITHOUT EXTRANEOUS HELP. TO SHOW THIS THE LORD SAYS:

Anagha, O unblemished one, O sinless one; [This word of address suggests that Arjuna is qualified to receive the Lord’s instruction.] dvividha, two kinds of ; nistha, steadfastness, persistence in what is undertaken; asmin loke, in this world, for the people of the three castes who are qualified for following the scriptures; prokta, were spoken of; maya, by Me, the omniscient God, who had revealed for them the traditional teachings of the Vedas, which are the means of securing prosperity and the highest Goal; pura, in the days of yore, in the beginning the creation, after having brought into being the creatures. Now then, which is that steadfastness of two kinds? In answer the Lord says: The steadfastness jnanayogena, through the Yoga of Knowledge-Knowledge itself being the Yoga [Here jnana, Knowledge, refers to the knowledge of the supreme Reality, and Yoga is used in the derivative sense of ‘that (Knowledge) through which one gets united with Brahman’.]-; had been stated sankhyanam, for the men of realization-those possessed of the Knowledge arising from the discrimination with regard to the Self and the not-Self, those who have espoused monasticism from the stage of Celibacy; itself, those to whom the entity presented by the Vedantic knowledge has become fully ascertained (see Mu. 3.2.6)-,the monks who are known as the parama-hamsas, those who are established in Brahman alone. And the steadfastness karma-yogena, through the Yoga of Action-action itself being the Yoga [Yoga here means ‘that through which one gets united with, comes to have, prosperity’, i.e. such actions as go by the name of righteousness and are prescribed by the scriptures.] had been stated yoginam, for the yogis, the men of action (rites and duties). This is the idea. Again, had it been intended or stated or if it will be stated in the Gita by the Lord-and if it has also been so stated in the Vedas-that Knowledge and action are to be practised in combination by one and the same person for attaining the same human Goal, why then should He here tell His dear supplicant Arjuna, that steadfastness in either Knowledge or action is to be practised only by different persons who are respectively qualified? If, on the other hand, it be supposed that the Lord’s idea is, ‘After hearing about both Knowledge and action, Arjuna will himself practise them (in combination); but, to others, I shall speak of them as being meant to be pursued by different persons’, then the Lord would be imagined to be unreliable, being possessed of likes and dislikes! And that is untenable. So, from no point of view whatsoever can there be a combination of Knowledge and action. And what has been said by Arjuna regarding superiority of Wisdom over action, that stands confirmed for not having been refuted; and (it also stands confirmed) that steadfastness in Knowledge is suitable for being practised by monks alone. And from the statement that they (Knowledge and action) are to be followed by different persons, it is understood that this has the Lord’s approval. Noticing that Arjuna had become dejected under the impression, ‘You are urging me to that very action which is a source of bondage’, and was thinking thus, ‘I shall not undertake action’, the Lord said, ‘Na karmanam anarambhat, not by abstaining from action,’ etc. Or:-When steadfastness in Knowledge and steadfastness in action become incapable of being pursued simultaneously by one and the same person owing to mutual contradiction, then, since it may be concluded that they become the cause of attaining the human Goal independently of each other, therefore, in order to show-that the steadfastness in action is a means to the human Goal, not independently, but by virtue of being instrumental in securing steadfastness in Knowledge; and that, on the other hand, steadfastness in Knowledge, having come into being through the means of steadfastness in action, leads to the human Goal independently without anticipating anything else-,the Lord said: