Cluster 0066 — BG-2.37 — *hato vā prāpsyasi svargam jitvā vā bhokṣyase mahīm — tasmād uttiṣṭha kaunteya yuddhāya kṛta-niścayaḥ*
BG-2.37
हतो वा प्राप्स्यसि स्वर्गं जित्वा वा भोक्ष्यसे महीम् । तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः ॥३७॥
"Slain, you will gain heaven; victorious, you will enjoy the earth. Therefore arise, O son of Kuntī, resolved upon battle."
This is the closing verse of Kṛṣṇa's first sustained kṣatriya-duty argument (BG-2.31-37) — the frankly worldly sub-argument (honor, heaven, kingdom) that comes before the great niṣkāma-karma teaching beginning at BG-2.38. Its logic is a no-loss wager: both outcomes of fighting are a gain, so there is nothing to deliberate. Jñāneśvar renders the wager and the rousing-cry faithfully in two ovis — and then, across the next four, quietly refuses to let the argument rest on rewards. He pivots it into the doctrine the whole chapter is driving toward: doing your own dharma destroys sin, the same act becomes sin only through selfish-motive (हेतुकपणें), and so — motive abandoned — even battle incurs no sin. The cluster is the doorway from prudential-karma into desireless-karma.
Ovi 2.220
Original (Marathi): ना तरी रणीं एथ । झुंजतां वेंचलें जीवित । तरी स्वर्गसुख अनकळित । पावसील ॥२२०॥ Voice: krishna-to-arjuna (continuous chariot-frame address; the 2nd-person पावसील "you will attain" anchors it)
Word-by-word gloss
| Marathi | Meaning |
|---|---|
| ना तरी रणीं एथ | or else, here in battle |
| झुंजतां वेंचलें जीवित | fighting, (if) your life is spent / expended |
| तरी स्वर्गसुख अनकळित | then heaven-bliss, un-thought-of (uncalculated) |
| पावसील | you will attain |
Literal translation
English: Or else — here, in battle, fighting, should your very life be spent — then you will attain a heaven-bliss you had not even imagined.
मराठी (आधुनिक): किंवा इथं रणांगणावर लढताना तुझा जीवच खर्ची पडला, तरी तुला कल्पनेतही नसलेलं स्वर्गसुख मिळेल.
Sanskrit-root note
अनकळित — from a- (not) + कळणे (to be known/realized); "un-thought-of," not-arrived-at-by-calculation — Jñāneśvar's amplification of the bare स्वर्गम् into a reward beyond reckoning.
Metaphor-unfold
No extended metaphor in this ovi. स्वर्गसुख अनकळित ("un-imagined heaven-bliss") is an intensifying epithet, not a sustained image.
Nāth-yogic layer
No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi. This is the heaven-horn of a worldly-prudential wager; no esoteric frame is active.
Cross-references
- Internal: Leads directly into 2.221, which draws the "therefore" and issues the rousing-imperative.
- Tukaram parallel: (none specific to this ovi)
- Source citation: Bhagavad Gītā 2.37 — हतो वा प्राप्स्यसि स्वर्गम् ("slain, you will attain heaven"); वेंचलें जीवित renders हतः, स्वर्गसुख अनकळित amplifies स्वर्गम्. Background: BG 3.35 (स्वधर्मे निधनं श्रेयः — "better to die in one's own dharma"), the svadharma-death-as-gain logic Jñāneśvar makes explicit two ovis later.
Modern application
- When someone reframes a hard, possibly-losing stand as "you can't lose either way." The mentor or commander who tells you that even failure here is a kind of winning — heaven if you fall, the field if you stand. It is genuine encouragement; it is also, the chapter will show, not yet the deepest reason to act.
- When the reward offered for risk is deliberately made un-pricable. स्वर्गसुख अनकळित — a bliss you "cannot even imagine" — is the un-quantifiable upside used to make a frightening choice feel like a bargain. Notice when a payoff is described as beyond-calculation precisely so you stop calculating.
- When you are afraid of an outcome that is, on inspection, survivable either way. Arjuna's terror assumes loss is pure loss. The verse insists both branches lead somewhere good — the fear is larger than the actual stakes.
Sādhanā
Today, take one thing you are dreading where you have quietly assumed "if it goes wrong, it's a disaster." Write the two branches — it goes well / it goes badly — and beside each, the honest outcome. See whether "badly" is actually the catastrophe your body is bracing for.
Arc
2.220 delivers the heaven-horn of the wager; 2.221 draws the "therefore" and turns it into the command to rise and fight.
Ovi 2.221
Original (Marathi): म्हणौनि ये गोठी । विचारु न करी किरीटी । आतां धनुष्य घेऊनि उठीं । झुंजैं वेगीं ॥२२१॥ Voice: krishna-to-arjuna (the vocative किरीटी "O Diademed-one" + imperatives उठीं/झुंजैं anchor it)
Word-by-word gloss
| Marathi | Meaning |
|---|---|
| म्हणौनि ये गोठी | therefore, in this matter |
| विचारु न करी किरीटी | do not deliberate, O Kirīṭī (Arjuna) |
| आतां धनुष्य घेऊनि उठीं | now, taking up the bow, arise |
| झुंजैं वेगीं | fight at once / swiftly |
Literal translation
English: Therefore, in this matter, do not keep deliberating, O Kirīṭī — now take up the bow, arise, and fight at once.
मराठी (आधुनिक): म्हणून या गोष्टीचा फार विचार करत बसू नकोस, किरीटी — आता धनुष्य उचल, ऊठ आणि लगेच लढ.
Metaphor-unfold
No extended metaphor in this ovi. It is a direct imperative-string, not an image.
Nāth-yogic layer
No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.
Cross-references
- Internal: Issues the bare rousing-cry; 2.222 then supplies the deeper ground for fighting — svadharma destroys sin.
- Tukaram parallel: Abhang 261 — न बाणतां स्थिति अंगीं । कर्म त्यागी लंड तो ("without the realization-state arising in the body, the one who abandons karma is a laṇḍa / cheat"). The same do-not-withdraw-from-action injunction as उठीं झुंजैं here: act on your prescribed work, do not renounce it prematurely. Tukaram adds the order-of-practice rule (state first, renunciation only after); Jñāneśvar frames it as the rousing-cry that ends deliberation.
- Source citation: Bhagavad Gītā 2.37 — तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः; उठीं renders उत्तिष्ठ, विचारु न करी renders कृतनिश्चयः (be resolved, do not waver), किरीटी renders the vocative कौन्तेय.
Modern application
- When the deliberation itself has become the avoidance. विचारु न करी — "stop turning it over." There is a point past which "thinking about it more" is no longer diligence but a way of not acting. The verse names that point and says: rise now.
- When you have decided but keep re-litigating the decision. कृतनिश्चय means already resolved — the choice is made; the bow is right there. The energy is now leaking into reconsideration that was settled hours or weeks ago.
- When fear disguises itself as "I need more information." Arjuna does not lack information; he lacks willingness. The honest move is to notice when "let me think" is the body refusing to stand up.
Sādhanā
Today, pick one thing you have genuinely already decided but keep mentally re-opening. Set a 10-minute timer. When it ends, the deliberating is over — take the single first concrete action (the email, the call, the first line). उठीं — rise — once.
Arc
2.221 ends deliberation with the rousing-cry; 2.222 replaces the reward-motive with the svadharma-ground — performing your own duty destroys sin, so the anxiety of sin is itself a delusion.
Ovi 2.222
Original (Marathi): देखैं स्वधर्मु हा आचरतां । दोषु नाशे असता । तुज भ्रांति हे कवण चित्ता । पातकाची ॥२२२॥ Voice: krishna-to-arjuna (देखैं "see!" + तुज "for you" address Arjuna directly)
Word-by-word gloss
| Marathi | Meaning |
|---|---|
| देखैं स्वधर्मु हा आचरतां | see — by performing this svadharma (one's own duty) |
| दोषु नाशे असता | existing fault / sin is destroyed |
| तुज भ्रांति हे कवण चित्ता | what is this delusion in your mind |
| पातकाची | of sin / of incurring sin |
Literal translation
English: See — by performing this svadharma, the sin that already exists is destroyed. What, then, is this delusion of sin haunting your mind?
मराठी (आधुनिक): बघ — हा स्वधर्म आचरला की असलेलं पापसुद्धा नष्ट होतं. मग पाप लागेल ही तुझ्या मनातली भ्रांती कसली?
Sanskrit-root note
स्वधर्म = sva (one's own) + dharma (duty/law-of-being); पातक = from √पत् (to fall) — "that which makes one fall," sin. The svadharma-destroys-pātaka claim restates BG 18.47's kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam in chapter-2.
Metaphor-unfold
No extended metaphor in this ovi. It is a direct doctrinal claim plus a rhetorical question (कवण भ्रांति — "what delusion?"), not an image.
Nāth-yogic layer
No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.
Cross-references
- Internal: 2.222's claim (svadharma destroys sin) is defended in 2.223 (boat-and-road) against the objection that duty could ever cause harm.
- Tukaram parallel: (none specific to this ovi)
- Source citation: Bhagavad Gītā 2.37 (amplification — Jñāneśvar grounds the wager in svadharma, beyond the bare prudential reward). BG 18.47 — स्वभावनियतं कर्म कुर्वन्नाप्नोति किल्बिषम् ("doing the duty born of one's own nature, one incurs no sin"), restated directly here; a different śloka from the cluster's own BG-2.37.
Modern application
- When you are paralyzed by the fear of "doing the wrong thing" while doing your actual job. Arjuna's भ्रांति पातकाची — the delusion that his proper duty will stain him. The professional frozen by the worry that the very thing they are meant to do is somehow a transgression.
- When guilt attaches to a clean, appropriate action. The doctor who must deliver a hard diagnosis, the manager who must let someone go — the act is svadharma, yet the mind manufactures a sense of sin. The verse calls that manufactured guilt a delusion, not a moral signal.
- When you confuse the difficulty of a duty with the wrongness of it. Hard ≠ wrong. The weight Arjuna feels is real; the conclusion "therefore I must be sinning" is the भ्रांति.
Sādhanā
Today, name one duty you have been doing with a low hum of guilt that doesn't quite make sense. Ask one question of it: is this guilt about a real wrong I am committing, or about how hard the right thing feels? Write which one it actually is.
Arc
2.222 asserts svadharma destroys sin; 2.223 defends the assertion with the boat-and-road analogy — the vehicle of duty never harms you, only mishandling does.
Ovi 2.223
Original (Marathi): सांगैं प्लवेंचि काय बुडिजे । कां मार्गीं जातां आडळिजे । परी विपायें चालों नेणिजे । तरी तेंही घडे ॥२२३॥ Voice: krishna-to-arjuna (the second-person सांगैं "tell me" continues the address)
Word-by-word gloss
| Marathi | Meaning |
|---|---|
| सांगैं प्लवेंचि काय बुडिजे | tell me — does one drown by the very boat (plava)? |
| कां मार्गीं जातां आडळिजे | or does one stumble while going on the very road? |
| परी विपायें चालों नेणिजे | but if, by mishap, one does not know how to proceed/walk |
| तरी तेंही घडे | then even that can happen |
Literal translation
English: Tell me — does anyone drown by the very boat that carries them, or stumble on the very road they walk? But if, through some mishandling, one does not know how to go, then even that may happen.
मराठी (आधुनिक): सांग बरं — ज्या होडीनं तरून जायचं तिच्यामुळेच कुणी बुडतं का? किंवा ज्या रस्त्यानं जायचं त्यावरच कुणी अडखळतं का? पण चुकीनं चालताच आलं नाही, तर मात्र तसंही घडू शकतं.
Metaphor-unfold
| Literal image | Philosophical referent | Modern equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| The boat (प्लव) that carries you across water | Svadharma — your own duty, the very vehicle of safe passage through life | The right tool / role / discipline that is designed to carry you, not sink you |
| Drowning by the boat itself / stumbling on the very road | The (false) fear that doing your duty could itself be the cause of your ruin / sin | The anxiety that the proper instrument is the danger — blaming the boat for the water |
| "But if, by mishap, you don't know how to walk" (विपायें चालों नेणिजे) | Harm comes not from the svadharma but from mishandling it — and the next ovi names that mishandling as motive | The tool harms only through misuse; the road trips only the one who walks it wrong |
Metaphor-family: vehicle-and-passage (boat-and-road). A two-image analogy isolating the cause of harm: never the means, only the misuse of the means. It sets up 2.224's sharper poison-vs-nectar simile, where the "mishandling" is named precisely as selfish-motive (हेतुकपणें).
Nāth-yogic layer
No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi. The boat-and-road is an everyday prudential analogy, not a suṣumnā-crossing or yogic-vehicle image; reading the प्लव as a kuṇḍalinī-vessel here would be an unsupported stretch.
Cross-references
- Internal: 2.223's "harm comes only from mishandling" is sharpened in 2.224 — the mishandling is selfish-motive (हेतुकपणें).
- Tukaram parallel: (none specific to this ovi)
- Source citation: Bhagavad Gītā 2.37 (amplification — the analogy is wholly Jñāneśvar's defense of the 2.222 svadharma-no-sin claim; BG-2.37 itself contains no such image).
Modern application
- When you blame the role for the harm that came from how you played it. "This job made me cruel." The boat does not drown you; the question is how you handled the boat. The role is rarely the corruptor — the motive you brought to it usually is.
- When you treat a sound practice as dangerous because it once went wrong for someone. People abandon a discipline (a diet, a therapy, a duty) because it "harmed" someone who mishandled it. The road is fine; the walking was off.
- When you want to quit the duty rather than fix the handling. The honest fork: is the problem the boat, or my rowing? Most of the time it is the rowing — and the boat is still the way across.
Sādhanā
Today, take one role or duty you have privately blamed for something that went wrong ("this work makes me X"). Re-ask it as: was it the work, or how I carried it? Name one specific way of handling it differently — that is the प्लव staying afloat.
Arc
2.223 isolates harm to mishandling, not the duty itself; 2.224 names the mishandling exactly — selfish-motive — through the poison-vs-nectar simile.
Ovi 2.224
Original (Marathi): अमृतें तरीच मरिजे । जरी विखेंसि सेविजे । तैसा स्वधर्मीं दोषु पाविजे । हेतुकपणें ॥२२४॥ Voice: krishna-to-arjuna (continuous instruction; तैसा...स्वधर्मीं applies the simile to Arjuna's case)
Word-by-word gloss
| Marathi | Meaning |
|---|---|
| अमृतें तरीच मरिजे | even by nectar (amṛta) one dies — even then — |
| जरी विखेंसि सेविजे | if it is consumed as poison (viṣa) |
| तैसा स्वधर्मीं दोषु पाविजे | likewise, in svadharma one incurs fault |
| हेतुकपणें | through selfish-motive (hetu-driven-ness) |
Literal translation
English: Even nectar becomes deadly — if it is taken as though it were poison. In just that way, one incurs sin even in one's own dharma — but only through selfish-motive.
मराठी (आधुनिक): विषाच्या भावनेनं घेतलं, तर अमृतसुद्धा मारक ठरतं. तसंच स्वधर्मातही पाप लागतं — पण फक्त हेतू (स्वार्थी हेतू) ठेवल्यानंच.
Sanskrit-root note
अमृत = a- (not) + मृत (dead) — "the deathless," nectar; विष = poison; हेतु = motive/cause. The contrast is exact: the deathless substance turns death-dealing purely by the disposition of consumption. हेतुकपणें = the abstract noun "motive-driven-ness."
Metaphor-unfold
| Literal image | Philosophical referent | Modern equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| Amṛta (nectar, "the deathless") — yet it kills | Svadharma — intrinsically clean, sin-destroying duty | A genuinely good act / medicine / role that is, in itself, beneficial |
| "If consumed as poison" (विखेंसि सेविजे) | The act done हेतुकपणें — with selfish-motive / fruit-desire — the inner disposition that inverts it | Taking the right action with a corrupt intention — the inner "as-poison" that flips the substance |
| The same draught is nectar or death depending on how taken | The deed is merit or sin depending on motive, not on the outward act | The same gift, the same favor, the same hard decision — generous or manipulative entirely by intention |
Metaphor-family: amṛta-and-viṣa (nectar-and-poison). The cluster's central image: outward act constant, motive variable, result inverted. It precisely names the "mishandling" of 2.223 as हेतुकपणें and seeds the niṣkāma-karma teaching the chapter is about to deliver.
Nāth-yogic layer
No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi. अमृत here is the everyday "nectar" of the proverb (the deathless draught), not the Nātha-yogic amṛta that drips from the brahmarandhra / lunar-cakra in the haṭha-yoga physiology; nothing in the ovi or its neighbors activates that esoteric register, so importing the brahmarandhra-amṛta would be a fabrication. Confidence in absence: high.
Cross-references
- Internal: 2.224's हेतुकपणें (the sin-condition) is the negative pole; 2.225's हेतू सांडोनि (motive abandoned) is its positive inverse — the two ovis bracket the cluster's claim.
- Tukaram parallel: Abhang 90 — केला अवघा चि अधर्म ("he made all of it adharma"): the same dharma-acts (tapas, tīrtha, dāna) flip into adharma when done for honor/ego (मानदंभासाठीं, अभिमान वाढविला). This is exactly the poison-vs-nectar logic — the inner intention, not the outward act, decides whether the deed becomes sin. Tukaram's ego-soured tapas is the same structure as svadharma turned to दोषु हेतुकपणें.
- Source citation: Bhagavad Gītā 2.37 (amplification — the simile is Jñāneśvar's pivot toward niṣkāma-karma; not in the Sanskrit of 2.37). BG 18.17 — यस्य नाहङ्कृतो भावो ... न हन्ति न निबध्यते ("the one whose disposition is ego-free ... neither kills nor is bound") echoes the disposition-decides-bondage logic.
Modern application
- When you do a genuinely good thing for a quietly self-serving reason — and feel the good go sour. The favor done to put someone in your debt; the apology offered to win the argument. The act is "nectar"; the हेतु makes it poison, and some part of you tastes it.
- When charity, help, or sacrifice is really about being seen doing it. The volunteering that curdles the instant the recognition is withheld — proof the motive, not the act, was running the show. Tukaram's अभिमान वाढविला, exactly.
- When you notice the same action lands as love from one person and manipulation from another. The variable is never the deed; it is the हेतु behind it. The verse hands you the diagnostic: check the disposition, not the gesture.
Sādhanā
Today, take one "good" thing you are about to do for someone. Before you do it, name its actual हेतु in one honest sentence — including the part you'd rather not admit ("...and I want them to owe me / notice me / forgive me"). Don't cancel the act; just see, once, whether you're handing over nectar or poison.
Arc
2.224 names motive as the thing that turns clean duty into sin; 2.225 draws the conclusion — abandon the motive entirely, and even kṣatriya battle incurs no sin.
Ovi 2.225
Original (Marathi): म्हणौनियां पार्था । हेतू सांडोनि सर्वथा । तुज क्षात्रवृत्ति झुंजतां । पाप नाहीं ॥२२५॥ Voice: krishna-to-arjuna (the vocative पार्था "O son of Pṛthā" + तुज "for you" anchor it)
Word-by-word gloss
| Marathi | Meaning |
|---|---|
| म्हणौनियां पार्था | therefore, O Pārtha (Arjuna) |
| हेतू सांडोनि सर्वथा | abandoning selfish-motive entirely / in every way |
| तुज क्षात्रवृत्ति झुंजतां | for you, fighting as the kṣatriya-vocation (kṣātra-vṛtti) |
| पाप नाहीं | there is no sin |
Literal translation
English: Therefore, O Pārtha — abandoning all selfish-motive entirely — for you, fighting as your kṣatriya-duty, there is no sin at all.
मराठी (आधुनिक): म्हणून, पार्था — स्वार्थी हेतू पूर्णपणे सोडून — तुझ्या क्षात्रवृत्तीनं लढताना तुला मुळीच पाप लागत नाही.
Sanskrit-root note
क्षात्रवृत्ति = kṣatra (warrior-order) + vṛtti (mode-of-living, vocation); हेतू सांडोनि = "having released the motive" — सांडणे (to let go/drop). This restates BG 18.47's svabhāva-niyatam karma kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam in the chapter-2 battlefield idiom.
Metaphor-unfold
No extended metaphor in this ovi. It is the direct doctrinal conclusion drawn from the 2.224 simile, stated plainly rather than imaged.
Nāth-yogic layer
No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.
Cross-references
- Internal: Ring-companion to 2.224 — हेतू सांडोनि (motive abandoned) is the positive inverse of हेतुकपणें (the sin-condition of being motive-driven). Together they close the cluster's central argument.
- Tukaram parallel: Abhang 64 — कर्मफळ म्हणुनी इच्छूं नये काम ("do not take up action because of its expected fruit"). This states exactly the doctrine of this ovi: action driven by selfish motive / fruit-desire (हेतु, कर्मफळ) is the error, while the same duty done हेतू सांडोनि is clean and sinless. Tukaram delivers the niṣkāma-karma core through the don't-crush-the-flower images; Jñāneśvar through the kṣātravṛtti-no-sin conclusion.
- Source citation: Bhagavad Gītā 2.37 (amplification — हेतू सांडोनि goes well beyond the prudential wager, anticipating BG 2.47). BG 18.47 — स्वभावनियतं कर्म कुर्वन्नाप्नोति किल्बिषम्, restated as तुज क्षात्रवृत्ति झुंजतां पाप नाहीं (a different śloka from the cluster's own). BG 18.17 — the egoless slayer who "neither kills nor is bound," echoed by हेतू सांडोनि ... झुंजतां पाप नाहीं.
Modern application
- When you must do a hard, even harsh, duty and want it to leave no stain. The verse's answer is not "avoid the act" but "purify the motive": do the necessary thing with the हेतु — the self-interest, the score-settling, the wish to look good — fully released. The act done सर्वथा हेतू सांडोनि is clean.
- When you suspect your "principled stand" is really driven by something else. Resigning "on principle" that is actually avoidance; confronting someone "for their good" that is actually anger. The cluster's whole spine: the act is fine, the हेतु is the question. Abandon the motive and the stand becomes clean; keep it and the same stand becomes poison.
- When you want to act without accumulating regret. पाप नाहीं — "no sin" — is, in the modern register, the freedom from the residue an action leaves because it was done for the wrong inner reason. Right act + released motive = no residue.
Sādhanā
Today, choose one ordinary duty you have to do anyway (a task, a conversation, a chore). Do it once watching only the motive, not the outcome — silently set down, before you begin, the part of you doing it to be thanked, repaid, or seen. Notice afterward whether the act felt lighter, residue-free. That noticing is हेतू सांडोनि in miniature.
Arc
2.225 closes the cluster by converting Kṛṣṇa's worldly wager into the desireless-action conclusion (motive abandoned → no sin); the next śloka, BG-2.38, makes this its explicit condition — fight, but holding pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat alike — opening the full niṣkāma-karma teaching the cluster has been seeding.
Cluster summary
Core teaching: Kṛṣṇa closes his worldly-prudential kṣatriya-duty argument (BG-2.31-37) with a no-loss wager — slain you gain heaven, victorious you gain the earth, so arise and fight resolved. Jñāneśvar renders the wager and the rousing-cry (2.220-221) faithfully, then refuses to let the argument rest on rewards: across 2.222-225 he pivots it into the svadharma-and-motive doctrine — performing one's own dharma destroys sin (2.222), the harm is never in the duty but in the handling (2.223, boat-and-road), the handling is precisely the motive (2.224, poison-vs-nectar — even nectar kills if taken as poison, i.e. svadharma incurs sin only हेतुकपणें), therefore with motive wholly abandoned (हेतू सांडोनि) even battle incurs no sin (2.225). The cluster is the doorway from prudential-karma into niṣkāma-karma.
Chapter arc position: BG-2.37 is the closing verse of Kṛṣṇa's first sustained kṣatriya-duty argument in adhyāya 2 (Sānkhya-yoga and the opening of karma-yoga). It is the last of the worldly reasons to fight (honor, heaven, sovereignty) before the great desireless-action teaching beginning at BG-2.38-47. Jñāneśvar's cluster sits exactly at this hand-off, using the four pivot-ovis (2.222-225) to build the bridge from reward-motivated action to the motive-abandoned action the chapter is about to teach.
Connects to BG-2.38: सुखदुःखे समे कृत्वा लाभालाभौ जयाजयौ — "treating pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat alike, then engage in battle." Where BG-2.37 motivated fighting by its rewards, BG-2.38 begins to withdraw reward as the motive entirely — which is exactly the हेतू सांडोनि ("abandon the motive") that Jñāneśvar has already voiced at 2.225. The cluster thus reads as the threshold from which the niṣkāma-karma teaching steps forward.