When we are attached to a point of view, it forms the basis for how we see and process. Arjuna here is demonstrating this principle on our behalf.
Arjuna heard previously in BG 2.40 that action is by far inferior to the yoga of intelligence. Although in Chapter 2, Lord Krishna clearly impressed upon Arjuna from sundry angles that carrying out his duty of fighting is in his best interest, Arjuna remained unconvinced and places his doubt again before Krishna: “O Krishna (janārdana)! If (cet) You (te) think (matā) that intelligence (buddhir) is better (jyāyasī) than action (karmaṇas), then (tat ghore) why (kiṁ) do engage (niyojayasi) me (māṁ) in horrible action (karmaṇi), O Krishna (keśava)?” (BG 3.1) Arjuna continues to hold on to the dilemma of whether he should take to renunciation or carry out his occupational duty of fighting. Arjuna goes on to say that Krishna surely (īva) bewilders (mohayasi) his (me) intelligence (buddhiṁ) by His equivocal (vyāmiśreṇeva) instruction (vākyena). Therefore (tad), Arjuna implores Krishna to speak (vada) one instruction (ekaṁ) decisively (niścitya) by which (yena) he (aham) will obtain (āpnuyām) the greatest good (śreyo). (BG 3.2)
Lord Krishna responds to this recurring question from Arjuna with utmost clarity. As already explained (proktā) before (purā), there are two (dvi-vidhā) firm ways to move forward (niṣṭhā) in this world (loke ’smin): by knowledge-yoga (jñāna-yogena) for the empirical seekers (sāṅkhyānāṁ), and by karma-yoga (karma-yogena) for the active connectors (yoginām). (BG 3.3) Here, Lord Krishna reiterates that there are two possible paths to perfection: (1) the path of renunciation (by the process of the yoga of knowledge or jñāna-yoga) and (2) the path of active connection (by the process of the yoga of action or karma-yoga). [Note that the yoga of intelligence delineated in chapter 2 is synonymous with the yoga of action because, in the yoga of action, the intelligence is directed toward the objective of life while the results of the action are directed toward the Supreme Object of our life, i.e., Lord Krishna.]
The question still remains: which path is better? So, Krishna explains further.
Merely by not (na) initiating (anārambhān) actions (karmaṇām), one (puruṣo) does not experience (aśnute) freedom from action [and reaction] (naiṣkarmyaṁ). And, neither (na ca) by renunciation alone (sannyasanād eva) does one attain (samadhigacchati) perfection (siddhiṁ). (BG 3.4) Not even (na hi) for a moment (kṣaṇam api) can anyone (kaścit) remain (tiṣṭhaty) inactive (akarma-kṛt) at any time (jātu). Certainly (hy), everyone (sarvaḥ) performs (kāryate) action (karma) helplessly (avaśaḥ) according to the qualities (guṇaiḥ) born of material nature (prakṛti-jair). (BG 3.5) It is very clear that succumbing to mere inaction is not even a possibility. What if one still aims for the impossible?
While restraining (saṁyamya) the working senses (karmendriyāṇi), one who (ya) goes on (āste) thinking of (smaran) the sense objects (indriyārthān) in the mind (manasā) is a bewildered soul (vimūḍhātmā) and is called a pretender (mithyācāraḥ sa ucyate). (BG 3.6) But (tv ), one who (yas) begins (ārabhate) karma-yoga (karma-yogam) with the working senses (karmendriyaiḥ) while regulating (niyamya) the senses (indriyāṇi) by the mind (manasā) without attachment (asaktaḥ) is by far superior (sa viśiṣyate). (BG 3.7)
In this section, Krishna defines the yoga of action as active engagement suiting our psychophysical nature, but without attachment to the fruits of action (BG 3.7). In the same verse (BG 3.7), Krishna furthermore establishes this yoga of action to be natural and practical, and therefore superior to the yoga of knowledge.
Why is karma-yoga considered most practical? Everyone is active helplessly according to one’s psychophysical nature (BG 3.5). So, it is better to acknowledge our individual nature and then engage it properly in Krishna’s service. On the other hand, if we artificially renounce our active nature while the mind is dwelling on the sense objects, we would become a pretender (BG 3.6).
