Arjuna continues the same doubt from the previous shloka. He feels that Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa’s teaching appears mixed or contradictory: on one side, jñānam has been praised as the remedy for sorrow and delusion; on the other side, karma has been strongly advised. Arjuna therefore says, “Through seemingly mixed statements, you are confusing my intellect.”

But the important word is iva — “as though.” Arjuna does not finally accuse Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa of confusion. He has enough śraddhā to know that the teacher will not be illogical. Therefore he says, “It appears as though you are confusing me.” This shows humility. In the previous shloka, he seemed to blame Kṛṣṇa; here he recovers and recognizes that the problem may be in his own understanding.

This is an important model for a student. If a teaching appears illogical, one should not blindly swallow it. That would be blind faith. At the same time, one should not dismiss the scripture or teacher as illogical. That would show lack of śraddhā. The right attitude is: “I am not understanding this properly. Please teach me again.” One should ask again and again until the apparent contradiction is resolved.

Arjuna then asks, “Tell me one thing definitely.” He still thinks karma-yoga and jñāna-yoga are optional alternatives. He wants Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa to choose one for him so that he does not have to think deeply. This reveals another weakness: the desire for command instead of understanding. Vedānta does not merely give orders; it teaches. Advice may produce obedience, but teaching produces transformation. Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa will therefore not simply say, “Do this.” He will unfold why karma-yoga is necessary, why jñāna-yoga is necessary, and why both have their proper place.