Cluster 0133 — BG 3.36 (केन प्रयुक्तः — Impelled by What?)

BG-3.36

The chapter-3 question-hinge. Krishna has stated the apex-imperative (BG-3.30, cluster 0127 — मयि सर्वाणि कर्माणि सन्न्यस्य, renounce-all-actions-in-Me), named the audience-disposition (BG-3.31, śraddhāvanto-anasūyanto), warned against paradharma (BG-3.35, cluster 0132 — परधर्मो भयावहः), and identified the path-bandits (BG-3.34 — rāga-dveṣa stationed in every indriya-object pair). Now Arjuna interrupts with the chapter's deepest single question: why does the knower still fall? Even those who have full discrimination — who KNOW hēya (what-to-avoid) from upādeya (what-to-take) — are seen to transgress, as if yoked by force. Whose insistence is this?

The seven Marathi ovis unfold the puzzle in cumulative force:

3.232 — opening (देवा, हें ऐसें कैसें — Lord, how is this so): knowers' stability collapses, they leave the path and walk astray.

3.233 — sharpening: even sarvajñas (all-knowers), who know hēya-upādeya, transgress through paradharma — by what cause?

3.234 — first metaphor: like a blind man who cannot distinguish seed from chaff, the sighted person momentarily acts blind.

3.235 — second case: those who had abandoned attachment can't keep away from re-engagement; even forest-dwellers go back to the town they renounced.

3.236 — the question's heart: they actively hide, they avoid pāpa with their whole being — and yet are forcibly thrust into it.

3.237 — third metaphor: the very thing the jīva rejects becomes glued-fast to the jīva; the more one flees, the more it surrounds.

3.238 — the closing demand: such a force is seen — whose insistence is this? Let Hṛṣīkeśa speak it. Says Pārtha.

Three findings worth front-loading:

The structural-hinge. Cluster 0133 is the chapter's question-pivot. Krishna's BG-3.37 answer (cluster 0134) names the force — this is kāma, this is krodha, sprung from rajas, the great-devourer, the great-evil, know this here to be the enemy. The question-answer pair (0133-0134) is one of the chapter's three architectural pairs. Without Arjuna's 3.36 question, the chapter's closing diagnosis would be unmotivated; with it, BG-3.37-43 becomes load-bearing.

The Hṛṣīkeśa substitution. Sanskrit BG-3.36 addresses Krishna as वार्ष्णेय (Vārṣṇeya, scion-of-the-Vṛṣṇi-clan) — a clan-vocative. Jñāneśvar's Marathi at 3.238 substitutes हृषीकेशे (Hṛṣīkeśa, Lord-of-the-indriyas). This is a thematically-loaded interpretive move: the question is about the indriya-faculty being overridden against its owner's will; the more apt addressee is the Lord-of-the-senses, not the clan-Lord. Worth tracking corpus-wide as the thematic-vocative-substitution pattern.

The three Marathi metaphor-additions. Arjuna's Sanskrit is one compact line (अनिच्छन्नपि बलादिव नियोजितः — even unwillingly, as if yoked by force); Jñāneśvar's Marathi gives it three vivid images: the blind-man-and-chaff (3.234), the forest-dweller-returning-to-town (3.235), and the jīva-glued-to-what-it-rejects (3.237). Each image dramatizes a distinct aspect of the puzzle — clarity-acting-blind, renunciate-relapsing, rejected-becoming-pursuer. The cluster is a strong case of Jñāneśvar's interpretive-amplification method, turning a one-line Sanskrit puzzle into a seven-stage Marathi unfolding.

Voice. All seven ovis are jnaneshvar-teacher — Jñāneśvar narrating Arjuna's question to his audience. The Sanskrit explicit अर्जुन उवाच opening + the prior cluster's अर्जुन म्हणे विनवणी editorial-frame + this cluster's closing पार्थु म्हणे together meet the discipline's threshold for voice-shift away from krishna-to-arjuna. The cluster's content IS Arjuna's speech, but the speaker on the meta-level is Jñāneśvar-as-narrator.

Stage-thread. Four ovis tagged at arjuna-transformation position 2 (questioning): 3.232, 3.233, 3.236, 3.238. The chain inside the cluster: opening → sharpening → heart → closing-demand. The previous arjuna-transformation anchor in the corpus is at cluster 0080 (BG-2.54, the sthitaprajña-question); 0133 (BG-3.36) is the second mature-question of the arc. The three metaphor-illustration ovis (3.234, 3.235, 3.237) are conservatively untagged — they amplify the question rhetorically but do not advance a thread-position.

Ovi 3.232

Original (Marathi): तरी देवा हें ऐसें कैसें । जे ज्ञानियांही स्थिति भ्रंशे । मार्गु सांडुनी अनारिसे । चालत देखों ॥२३२॥ Voice: jnaneshvar-teacher (Jñāneśvar narrating Arjuna's quoted speech; the vocative देवा (Lord) is Arjuna's address to Krishna, embedded in Jñāneśvar's narrative-frame established at cluster 0132's अर्जुन म्हणे विनवणी)

Word-by-word gloss

Marathi	Meaning
तरी	so / then (continuing from prior cluster's setup)
देवा	O Lord (vocative — Arjuna addressing Krishna)
हें ऐसें कैसें	how is this so / how can this be
जे	that / namely (relative-conjunctive)
ज्ञानियांही	even of the knowers / of the jñānis
स्थिति भ्रंशे	the [established] stability collapses / falls
मार्गु सांडुनी	abandoning the path
अनारिसे	astray / contrary-to-direction / in-the-other-way
चालत देखों	we see [them] walking

Literal translation

English: "So, Lord — how is this so, that even the knowers' established-stability collapses? Abandoning the path, we see them walk astray."

मराठी (आधुनिक): "तर देवा, हे असे कसे होते की ज्ञानी लोकांची सुद्धा स्थिती ढळते — मार्ग सोडून ते उलट दिशेला चालताना दिसतात?"

The opening of Arjuna's question. The vocative देवा re-opens the dialogue — cluster 0132 ended with Arjuna's अर्जुन म्हणे विनवणी असे देवा editorial-frame; 3.232 begins the quoted-question itself. The chosen subject is ज्ञानी (the knower) — not the ignorant, not the beginner, but the established-knower whose स्थिति (stable-state) has been won and now is seen to fall. The verb भ्रंशे (collapses / falls-away) is the same Sanskrit-derived root as the Gītā's later योगभ्रष्ट (BG-6.41 — fallen-from-yoga); Arjuna here is identifying the same phenomenon Krishna will address in adhyāya 6. The closing चालत देखों (we SEE them walking) is observational-empirical — Arjuna is not theorizing but reporting on visible cases.

Metaphor-unfold

No extended metaphor in this ovi.

Nāth-yogic layer

No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.

Cross-references

Internal:
parallel-image with 2.190 (cluster 0079, the sthitaprajña-question opening of cluster 0080). Arjuna's adhyāya-2 mature-question was about the characteristics of the stabilized-knower; adhyāya-3's mature-question at 3.232 is about the collapse of the stabilized-knower. Same arjuna-transformation arc — the questioner has matured from who-is-the-sthitaprajña? to why-does-the-knower-fall?.
Tukaram parallel: none for this ovi specifically (Tukaram's resonance with the cluster lands at 3.233 and 3.236).
Source citations:
Bhagavad Gītā 3.36 — direct-paraphrase. The opening line of Arjuna's question.
Bhagavad Gītā 3.34 — echo. The two-ślokas-earlier path-bandits diagnosis whose verdict Arjuna's question presupposes.

Modern application

The seasoned therapist who, during a difficult session, momentarily reacts from his own old wound rather than from clinical-skill — and the client feels it. The therapist knew what was needed; the knowing did not control the moment. 3.232's observation is exactly this: we see knowers walk astray.
The seasoned meditator who has sat for ten years and one Tuesday morning, in traffic, loses their temper at a driver — the same temper they had thought was finished. The स्थिति (stable-state) was real; the भ्रंश (collapse) is also real. Both are facts to be sat with, not denied.
The senior-engineer-with-clean-code-principles who, under deadline-pressure, ships the same kind of brittle hack she has spent her career teaching juniors not to ship. Knowledge of the principle was not in question; what overrode it is the question Arjuna is asking.

Sādhanā

Today, identify ONE area where you have clear discrimination — you know exactly what is hēya (to-avoid) and what is upādeya (to-take). At one moment in the next 24 hours, watch yourself act against that discrimination. Don't intervene. Just observe — and name silently: ज्ञानियांही स्थिति भ्रंशे — even the knower's stability falls. The observation, not the correction, is the practice for this ovi. The correction is the chapter's later business; the observation is its present demand.

Arc

Having opened with the observed phenomenon (knowers' stability falls), Arjuna in 3.233 will sharpen the puzzle: even sarvajñas who know hēya-upādeya transgress through paradharma — by what cause?

Ovi 3.233

Original (Marathi): सर्वज्ञुही जे होती । हेयोपादेयही जाणती । तेही परधर्में व्यभिचरिति । कवणें गुणें ? ॥२३३॥ Voice: jnaneshvar-teacher (continuing the narrated Arjuna-question; the rhetorical-interrogative कवणें गुणें (by what cause?) preserves Arjuna's first-person inquiry-mode)

Word-by-word gloss

Marathi	Meaning
सर्वज्ञुही जे होती	even those who are sarvajña (all-knowers)
हेयोपादेयही जाणती	who know hēya (what-to-avoid) and upādeya (what-to-take)
तेही	they too
परधर्में व्यभिचरिति	transgress through paradharma (the other-than-one's-own dharma)
कवणें गुणें	by what quality / by what cause?

Literal translation

English: "Even those who are sarvajña, who know hēya and upādeya — they too transgress through paradharma — by what cause?"

मराठी (आधुनिक): "जे सर्वज्ञ आहेत, ज्यांना त्याज्य-ग्राह्य काय हे माहीत आहे, तेसुद्धा परधर्मात कशामुळे व्यभिचार करतात?"

The sharpening move. 3.232 named the phenomenon (knowers fall); 3.233 sharpens the puzzle by intensifying the subject: not just ज्ञानी (knower) but सर्वज्ञ (sarvajña — all-knower) — and not just knowledge-in-general but the specific applied-discrimination of हेयोपादेय (hēya = what-to-avoid + upādeya = what-to-take), the technical pair that names the operational knowledge needed for right-action. The verb व्यभिचरिति (transgress, deviate) is the same Sanskrit-Marathi root as Patañjali's स्वरूप-शून्यम् इव वृत्तेः अनुगच्छति adjacent concept of deviation-from-svarūpa — wandering-from-form. The closing परधर्में व्यभिचरिति echoes cluster 0132's BG-3.35 verdict directly: paradharma is fear-bringing — yet the sarvajña transgresses INTO it. By what cause? The interrogative कवणें गुणें (by what cause) demands a NAMING — and Krishna's BG-3.37 answer will name it.

Metaphor-unfold

No extended metaphor in this ovi.

Nāth-yogic layer

No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.

Cross-references

Internal: the question's कवणें गुणें (by what cause) is answered at cluster 0134 (BG-3.37) with रजोगुणसमुद्भवः — sprung-from-the-rajo-guṇa. The Marathi गुणें (cause / quality) at 3.233 and the Sanskrit गुण (rajo-guṇa) at 3.37 share the word — Arjuna's question already names the answer's category (it's a गुण-question) even before the answer arrives.
Tukaram parallel:
Tukaram 2730 (मी चि विखळ — येर सकळ बहु बरें — तुका जाला निमनुष्य — I alone am defective, everyone else looks good — Tukā became a no-person). The bhakta's-side personal-confession matching Arjuna's theoretical-puzzle. Where Arjuna asks by what cause do even the knowers transgress?, Tukaram answers from inside the puzzle: I am the one who is defective; everyone-else looks good. The same structure (the-one-who-knows-better still falling) under two registers — Arjuna's framing is third-person observation, Tukaram's is first-person confession.
Source citations:
Bhagavad Gītā 3.36 — direct-paraphrase. The sharpening line of Arjuna's question.
Bhagavad Gītā 3.35 — echo. परधर्मो भयावहः (paradharma is fear-bringing, the closing line of the previous cluster) appears here as परधर्में व्यभिचरिति (transgress through paradharma) — Arjuna's word-for-word reuse.

Modern application

The published professor of ethics who is found, after years of being the local moral-conscience, to have plagiarized a paper — and knew it was plagiarism while doing it. The hēya-upādeya knowledge was complete; the transgression occurred against it. 3.233 names this exact phenomenon and refuses to write it off as ignorance.
The recovering-alcoholic with twelve years of sobriety who, on a hard Tuesday, picks up a drink, knowing perfectly well what the next twelve months will look like. The sarvajña-status (all-knowing of the consequences) does not stop the act. The puzzle is not informational.
The activist who has spent a decade fighting systemic injustice and finds themselves, in a private moment, doing the thing they have publicly named as wrong. By what cause? — 3.233's question is the question the activist asks themselves at the bathroom mirror that night.

Sādhanā

Today, identify ONE specific area where you have full hēya-upādeya knowledge (you know completely what to avoid and what to take in this domain) AND where you have, in the past, transgressed against that knowledge. Spend three minutes — set a timer — writing a single sentence: I knew exactly what was hēya. I knew exactly what was upādeya. I did the hēya thing anyway. By what cause? Do not try to answer the question. Sit with the question for the remaining time. Let the puzzle stay puzzling. The chapter's later business is to name the cause; the practice today is to feel the question's full force.

Arc

Having sharpened the puzzle to its philosophical edge (sarvajñas-still-transgress), Arjuna in 3.234 will offer the first of three dramatizing metaphors — the blind-man-and-chaff image — to make the puzzle's strangeness vivid.

Ovi 3.234

Original (Marathi): बीजा आणि भूसा । अंधु निवाडू नेणें जैसा । नावेक देखणाही तैसा । बरळे कां पां ? ॥२३४॥ Voice: jnaneshvar-teacher (continuing the narrated Arjuna-question; the analogical opener जैसा ... तैसा and the closing rhetorical बरळे कां पां? are Arjuna's question-mode)

Word-by-word gloss

Marathi	Meaning
बीजा आणि भूसा	seed and chaff
अंधु	a blind person
निवाडू नेणें जैसा	as one who does not know the distinguishing-judgment
नावेक	for a moment / momentarily
देखणाही तैसा	even the sighted-one likewise
बरळे	speaks-confused / acts-confused / babbles
कां पां	why-then? (interrogative-particle)

Literal translation

English: "Just as a blind person does not know the distinguishing of seed from chaff — likewise, even the sighted-one, for a moment, acts confused. Why then?"

मराठी (आधुनिक): "बीज आणि भूस यांच्यातील फरक जसा आंधळ्याला कळत नाही, तसाच डोळसही क्षणभर गोंधळून जातो — असे का होते?"

The first of three Marathi metaphor-additions amplifying Arjuna's bare Sanskrit अनिच्छन्नपि. The image: a blind person obviously cannot tell seed from chaff (they look identical to touch; the distinction is visual). The strange thing — and Arjuna's point — is that the sighted-one (देखणा) momentarily (नावेक) acts as if blind. Knowledge is present; vision is intact; and yet for a moment the agent acts as if knowledge had vanished. The temporal qualifier नावेक (for-a-moment) is precise: this is not a permanent loss of discrimination but a transient eclipse — the knower's स्थिति (3.232) collapses for a moment and then re-establishes. The closing बरळे कां पां? (why does he babble-act-confused?) preserves Arjuna's interrogative-mode. The word बरळे is rich — it covers both speak-incoherently and act-incoherently; Arjuna is naming the agent's whole expressive-behavior in that moment as out-of-character.

Metaphor-unfold

Literal image	Philosophical referent	Modern equivalent
A blind person handed seed and chaff together cannot distinguish them	The ignorant agent (ajñānī) cannot discern hēya from upādeya	A new analyst cannot tell signal from noise in raw data
For-a-moment the sighted person also fails to distinguish	The knower (jñānī), momentarily, loses discrimination — though sight is intact	The senior analyst, in fatigue or stress, momentarily misreads the signal
The phenomenon is observable, not theoretical (`देखणा बरळे` — we see the sighted-one act confused)	Arjuna's question is empirical-grounded, not abstract	The puzzle is what we actually witness in ourselves, not a theoretical worry

Metaphor family: blind-man-and-chaff — a Jñāneśvar interpretive-addition (the Sanskrit BG-3.36 does not contain this image). It serves to make Arjuna's अनिच्छन्नपि (even unwillingly) vivid by analogy to a momentary-sensory-failure in a sighted agent.

Nāth-yogic layer

No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.

Cross-references

Internal: none specific to this image elsewhere in the early adhyāyas. The blind-man image will recur in adhyāya 13 (kṣetra-kṣetrajña) and adhyāya 14 (guṇa-discrimination), but in different functional roles.
Tukaram parallel: none for this metaphor specifically.
Source citations:
Bhagavad Gītā 3.36 — paraphrase. The image is Jñāneśvar's interpretive expansion of अनिच्छन्नपि.

Modern application

The seasoned editor who, on a tired Friday, signs off on a sentence that contains exactly the error he has spent his career correcting — and only realizes it on Monday. The sight is intact; the moment of attention dropped. 3.234 names the temporal-eclipse exactly: नावेक — for-a-moment.
The experienced clinician who, in a fast-paced ward round, misses the differential-diagnosis he has taught residents for fifteen years. The training was complete; the moment failed. The puzzle is the moment.
The mature parent who, in one moment of triggered-reaction, says the exact thing to their child that they had vowed never to say, having heard it themselves in childhood and committed to break the cycle. The sight was clear; the moment darkened.

Sādhanā

Today, watch for ONE momentary-eclipse — a brief instant where someone you know to be skilled, mature, or well-discriminating (yourself included) acts momentarily as if they had no knowledge in their domain. Note the moment internally. Do not call it out, do not analyze it. Just register: नावेक देखणा बरळे — momentarily even the sighted acts confused. The observation is the day's discipline.

Arc

Having illustrated the puzzle with the blind-man image, Arjuna in 3.235 will offer the second case: the renunciate who can't stop seeking what he renounced.

Ovi 3.235

Original (Marathi): जे असता संगु सांडिती । तेचि संसर्गु करितां न धाती । वनवासीही सेविती । जनपदातें ॥२३५॥ Voice: jnaneshvar-teacher (continuing the narrated Arjuna-question; the present-tense plurals सांडिती / न धाती / सेविती preserve the empirical-observational mode of Arjuna's inquiry)

Word-by-word gloss

Marathi	Meaning
जे	those who
असता संगु सांडिती	abandon present-attachment / give up the attachment that-was
तेचि	they themselves
संसर्गु करितां न धाती	are not satisfied / can-not-stop even after engaging-with-it
वनवासीही	even forest-dwellers (vanavāsīs, renunciate-householders)
सेविती	serve / frequent / resort to
जनपदातें	the populated-place / the town / civilization

Literal translation

English: "Those who had abandoned attachment-that-was — they themselves, when re-engaging, are not satisfied; even forest-dwellers frequent the town."

मराठी (आधुनिक): "जे आधीच्या संगाचा त्याग करतात, तेच पुन्हा संसर्गात गुंतून समाधानी होत नाहीत — वनवासीसुद्धा गावात जातात-येतात."

The second Marathi metaphor-addition. The image is sociological: the renunciate (one who has performed संग-त्याग, abandonment-of-attachment) is seen frequenting the very town he renounced. The verb-cluster is psychologically precise: (i) संगु सांडिती (they abandon attachment) — the act of renunciation completed; (ii) संसर्गु करितां न धाती (even after re-engaging, they are not satisfied / are unsatisfiable) — the rebound creates not pleasure but un-satisfaction; the renunciate's relapse is not enjoyable, it is compulsive; (iii) वनवासीही सेविती जनपदातें — the explicit-renunciate (forest-dweller) is the most extreme case, going back to the very town he ostensibly left.

The phrase न धाती is load-bearing — it does not mean they re-engage with pleasure; it means re-engagement does not bring them to a stop / does not satisfy / does not fulfill. The renunciate's relapse is unsatisfying-yet-unstoppable — exactly the phenomenology of compulsion. This is Arjuna's question made vivid through a recognizable social-type.

Metaphor-unfold

Literal image	Philosophical referent	Modern equivalent
The vanavāsī (forest-dwelling renunciate) has formally renounced the town	The aspirant has performed sanga-tyāga (abandonment of attachment)	The recovered-addict has finished rehab and committed to sobriety
And yet the vanavāsī frequents the very town he left	The renunciate is observed re-engaging with the renounced	The recovered-addict is observed checking the bar where he used to drink
The re-engagement does not satisfy (`न धाती`) — it does not bring rest, only repetition	The relapse is not pleasurable but compulsive — the rejected returns as bondage	The relapse is not enjoyment but compulsion — and the agent knows it
Even the most-extreme renunciate (vanavāsī) is the case-in-point	Even the most-disciplined practitioner is the case Arjuna names	Even the most-committed recovery is the case 3.235 illustrates

Metaphor family: forest-dweller-returning-to-town — Jñāneśvar's interpretive addition. The Sanskrit BG-3.36 names the phenomenon (बलादिव नियोजितः — yoked-as-if-by-force); the Marathi gives it the specific social-form of the renunciate's relapse.

Nāth-yogic layer

No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.

Cross-references

Internal: none specific to this image in earlier clusters.
Tukaram parallel:
Tukaram 2844 (and the 4-abhang anti-fake-renunciate cluster 2844-2847 against gājarāñcī-pungī-jōgis, hypocrite-nāka-dharī, ṭīḷā-ṭōpī-gosāvīs, tobacco-cannabis pseudo-sants). The bhakta's-side sociological-protest version of the same phenomenon Arjuna observes. Where Arjuna asks what FORCE makes this happen?, Tukaram names the social-type and protests. The cross-corpus pairing: Jñāneśvar's text presents the phenomenon as a question awaiting theoretical-diagnosis (which arrives at BG-3.37 as kāma-krodha); Tukaram presents it as a sociological-protest against named contemporaries. Both texts witness the same fact — the formal-renunciate who has not actually renounced — but from different angles. Tukaram's tobacco-cannabis pseudo-sants is the same problem Jñāneśvar diagnoses at the inner-mechanism level.
Source citations:
Bhagavad Gītā 3.36 — paraphrase. The image is Jñāneśvar's vivid case-illustration of the Sanskrit's बलादिव नियोजितः.

Modern application

The person who has decisively quit social media (संग सांडिती) and finds themselves, three weeks later, opening a browser tab to check what's-happening — not because they want to scroll but because they can't stop checking. The act doesn't satisfy (न धाती); the impulse pulls anyway. The renunciation was real; the rebound is also real.
The recovered-from-toxic-relationship person who has not seen their ex for six months and finds themselves, on a quiet Sunday, searching the ex's name on LinkedIn — not because of love but because the check-impulse cannot rest. वनवासीही सेविती जनपदातें — even the forest-dweller goes back to the town.
The mid-career professional who left corporate-life for the simpler-craft / consulting / homestead (संग सांडिती) and finds themselves, two years in, repeatedly checking the salaries and titles of their old colleagues on Glassdoor — not because they want to return but because the comparison-impulse outlives the leaving.

Sādhanā

Today, identify ONE thing you have meaningfully renounced — a habit, a relationship, a consumption-pattern, a workplace — at any point in the past two years. At one moment in the next 24 hours, notice an impulse to check back / return to / engage with the thing you renounced. Do not act on the impulse. Do not suppress the impulse. Just observe it — and silently name: वनवासीही सेविती जनपदातें — even the forest-dweller serves the town. The naming is the day's practice. The chapter's later business is to name the force; today's discipline is to recognize its specific arrival in your own life.

Arc

Having illustrated the puzzle with the renunciate's-relapse image, Arjuna in 3.236 will state the puzzle's heart: even those who actively hide and avoid pāpa with their whole being are forcibly thrust into it.

Ovi 3.236

Original (Marathi): आपण तरी लपती । सर्वस्वें पाप चुकविती । परी बळात्कारें सुइजती । तयाचि माजीं ॥२३६॥ Voice: jnaneshvar-teacher (continuing the narrated Arjuna-question; the present-tense plurals + परी (and-yet) preserve the empirical-observational + puzzlement mode)

Word-by-word gloss

Marathi	Meaning
आपण तरी	they themselves
लपती	hide / conceal themselves
सर्वस्वें	with [their] whole being / with all-their-own
पाप चुकविती	avoid pāpa / dodge sin
परी	yet / nevertheless
बळात्कारें	by force / by violence
सुइजती	are thrust / are inserted / are made-to-enter
तयाचि माजीं	into that very [thing]

Literal translation

English: "They themselves hide; with their whole being they avoid pāpa — and yet, by force they are thrust into that very thing."

मराठी (आधुनिक): "ते स्वतःला लपवतात, सर्वस्वाने पाप टाळतात — तरीही बळजबरीने त्यातच ते ढकलले जातात."

The puzzle's heart. The progression is structurally tight: (i) आपण तरी लपती — they hide themselves (passive-defensive avoidance); (ii) सर्वस्वें पाप चुकविती — they avoid pāpa with their WHOLE being (active-resistance with full force of will); (iii) परी बळात्कारें सुइजती तयाचि माजीं — and yet, by force, they are thrust into the very thing.

The Marathi बळात्कारें सुइजती is the closest single-line rendering of Sanskrit बलादिव नियोजितः (yoked-as-if-by-force). The Sanskrit's इव (as-if) is dropped in the Marathi; Jñāneśvar's Marathi makes the force literal — not as-if-yoked but forcibly thrust. The verb सुइजती is precise: it means are-inserted / are-made-to-enter — passive-injective, as if pushed-in against the body's own contraction. The agent is not seduced; the agent is injected.

The strongest evidence for the force's reality is the prior clause's strength: not a passive bystander but an actively-resisting agent (hiding + whole-being-avoiding) is the one defeated. If the resistance had been weak, the defeat would prove little; the resistance is total, and the defeat occurs anyway. This is what makes Arjuna's question philosophical rather than incidental.

Metaphor-unfold

No extended metaphor in this ovi.

Nāth-yogic layer

No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.

Cross-references

Internal:
foreshadows 3.246 (cluster 0134, BG-3.37) — Krishna's answer NAMES the force: काम एष क्रोध एष — रजोगुणसमुद्भवः — महाशनो महापाप्मा — विद्ध्येनमिह वैरिणम् (this is kāma, this is krodha — sprung from rajo-guṇa — great-devourer, great-evil — know this here to be the enemy). 3.236's बळात्कारें सुइजती (forcibly thrust in) sets the demand for the next cluster's NAMING.
Tukaram parallel:
Tukaram 2730 (मी चि विखळ — येर सकळ बहु बरें — तुका जाला निमनुष्य — I alone am defective, everyone-else looks good — Tukā became a no-person). The bhakta's-side first-person confession of the same defeat. Where 3.236 observes they are forcibly thrust in despite hiding-and-avoiding, Tukaram says I am the defective one — I am the no-person. The Tukaram form internalizes the puzzle as autobiography; the Jñāneśvar form preserves it as third-person observation. Same defeat, two registers.
Source citations:
Bhagavad Gītā 3.36 — direct-paraphrase. बळात्कारें सुइजती तयाचि माजीं ≈ बलादिव नियोजितः ... पापं चरति.

Modern application

The person who has installed every blocker, deleted every shortcut, removed every cue, told three friends about their commitment to stop — आपण तरी लपती — सर्वस्वें पाप चुकविती (they hide themselves; they avoid with their whole being) — and finds themselves, on day fourteen, executing the very behavior, with the calm helpless knowledge that they have just been thrust into it. Not seduced. Thrust. 3.236 names this exact phenomenology.
The leader who has built an elaborate decision-architecture to prevent themselves from making the specific class of mistake they know they make — the second-spouse-disaster, the third-startup-bankruptcy, the fourth-job-burnout — and finds themselves, against the architecture, doing the exact thing the architecture was built to prevent. The whole-being-effort was real; the force that overran it was also real.
The therapist who has worked their own material with their own therapist for five years to break a specific pattern with their children — has read the literature, done the inner-child work, met the wound — and finds themselves, in one triggered moment with a child, executing the very pattern. The hiding-and-avoiding was the entire ground-of-being for five years; the force still won the moment.

Sādhanā

Today, do one specific thing: name aloud (to yourself, in private) one area where you have hidden-and-avoided with your whole-being AND been forcibly-thrust-in anyway. Use the actual Marathi if you can: आपण तरी लपती — सर्वस्वें पाप चुकविती — परी बळात्कारें सुइजती तयाचि माजीं — by what force? whose insistence?. Sit with the recognition for two minutes without trying to fix anything. The chapter's next cluster will name the force; today, simply acknowledge that the force is real — not weakness of will, not lack of trying, not insufficient knowledge — but a force. The acknowledgment is half of the chapter's medicine.

Arc

Having stated the puzzle's heart (active-resistance + total-defeat), Arjuna in 3.237 will offer the third metaphor: the very thing the jīva rejects becomes glued-fast to the jīva.

Ovi 3.237

Original (Marathi): जयाची जीवें घेती विवसी । तेचि जडोनि ठाके जीवेंसीं । चुकवितां ते गिंवसी । तयातेंचि ॥२३७॥ Voice: jnaneshvar-teacher (continuing the narrated Arjuna-question; the third-person plurals continue the empirical mode)

Word-by-word gloss

Marathi	Meaning
जयाची	of which / for which
जीवें घेती विवसी	the jīva [actively] takes dislike / aversion
तेचि	that very thing
जडोनि ठाके	becomes glued-fast / stays-stuck
जीवेंसीं	with the jīva
चुकवितां	while [they are] trying to dodge / avoid
ते गिंवसी	it surrounds / besieges
तयातेंचि	the very one [trying to escape]

Literal translation

English: "That very thing for which the jīva takes-dislike — that itself becomes glued-fast to the jīva; while one tries to dodge it, it surrounds the very one [trying to escape]."

मराठी (आधुनिक): "ज्या गोष्टीचा जीव तिरस्कार करतो, तीच जिवाला चिकटून बसते; ती टाळायचा प्रयत्न करताना तीच पुन्हा वेढून टाकते."

The third Marathi metaphor-addition, intensifying the puzzle to its most disturbing form. The earlier ovis named the phenomenon of involuntary doing; 3.237 names the phenomenon of the rejected becoming the pursuer. The structure: (i) जयाची जीवें घेती विवसी — the agent's active-dislike (विवसी = aversion, dislike) is directed at a specific thing; (ii) तेचि जडोनि ठाके जीवेंसीं — that very thing becomes glued (जडोनि ठाके = becomes-fixed-by-adhesion) to the jīva; the adhesion is precisely to the thing the agent rejects; (iii) चुकवितां ते गिंवसी तयातेंचि — while-dodging, it surrounds the very one [trying to escape]. The verb गिंवसी is a strong choice — it means encircles / besieges / surrounds-completely, as a military force surrounds a target. The agent runs from it; it encircles them.

The jīva-glue image is a Jñāneśvar signature: the more one resists, the tighter the bond. This is not the Sanskrit Gītā's standard phenomenology — the Gītā speaks of attraction (rāga) and aversion (dveṣa) but does not develop the dynamic that the rejected becomes the adhered-to. Jñāneśvar's Marathi adds this phenomenology to make Arjuna's puzzle sharper: it is not merely that one is yoked-against-will to something; one is yoked to the very thing one was actively rejecting. The pursuit is malicious-seeming, agentic-seeming — which prepares Krishna's BG-3.37 answer naming kāma-krodha as a personal enemy (वैरिन्), not merely a force.

Metaphor-unfold

Literal image	Philosophical referent	Modern equivalent
The jīva actively rejects a particular thing (`जीवें घेती विवसी`)	The agent has clear-discrimination + clear-rejection toward a specific behavior, person, situation	The recovered-person has clear identification of the thing they reject
That very thing becomes glued-fast (`तेचि जडोनि ठाके जीवेंसीं`)	The rejection itself becomes the bond; what is pushed-away becomes adhered-to	The more one suppresses the thought, the more it sticks; rejection is its own form of binding
While dodging, it surrounds the dodger (`चुकवितां ते गिंवसी तयातेंचि`)	The escape-attempt is itself the path by which the thing arrives	The flight from the thing IS the way the thing finds you — the avoidance creates the encounter
The image is agentic — the thing encircles (`गिंवसी`) like a besieging force	The rejected behaves as if it had agency, malice, intention — preparing Krishna's enemy-language (वैरिन्) at BG-3.37	The compulsion feels personal, hostile, intent — not random; this preparation justifies the naming of an enemy

Metaphor family: jīva-glued-to-what-it-rejects — Jñāneśvar's interpretive addition; not present in the bare Sanskrit. The phenomenology of the rejected-becoming-the-pursuer prepares the way for naming kāma-krodha as a personal enemy in BG-3.37.

Nāth-yogic layer

No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi.

Cross-references

Internal: none specific in earlier clusters; the jīva-glue image will be developed further in adhyāya 14 (the guṇa-binding discussion) where each guṇa is said to bind (निबध्नाति) the embodied-self in a specific way.
Tukaram parallel: none for this specific image.
Source citations:
Bhagavad Gītā 3.36 — paraphrase. Interpretive amplification of अनिच्छन्नपि ... बलादिव नियोजितः.

Modern application

The person who has decided they will never again be the type-of-person who needs external approval — and finds, every time they make a decision, that approval-seeking is the very tissue of their decision-making. The MORE actively they reject it, the more visibly it organizes their behavior. तेचि जडोनि ठाके जीवेंसीं — the rejected sticks fast.
The meditator who has identified a specific mental-pattern as the obstacle and works diligently to not have that pattern — and finds that the not-having is itself the new form of the pattern. The flight is the path of arrival.
The recovering-narcissist who has read every book, done every workshop, identified every characteristic, and become especially proud of having transcended narcissism. The rejection has produced a more-elegant form of the rejected. चुकवितां ते गिंवसी तयातेंचि — while-dodging, it surrounds the dodger.

Sādhanā

Today, identify ONE specific behavior, mental-pattern, or social-position that you have actively rejected (जीवें घेती विवसी). Spend three minutes asking yourself: In what form does this rejected-thing still organize my life? What is the SHAPE of its adhesion? Do not try to push the rejection further — that is the chapter's diagnosis of the problem. Simply observe the shape of the glue. The 3.237 discipline is to see how the rejection has become the bond.

Arc

Having stated the puzzle in its three vivid forms (blind-spot, renunciate-relapse, rejected-adhesion), Arjuna in 3.238 will close the question: such a force is seen — whose insistence is this? Let Hṛṣīkeśa speak it.

Ovi 3.238

Original (Marathi): ऐसा बलात्कारु एकु दिसे । तो कवणाचा एथ आग्रहो असे । हें बोलावें हृषीकेशें । पार्थु म्हणे ॥२३८॥ Voice: jnaneshvar-teacher (the explicit closing speaker-attribution पार्थु म्हणे (Pārtha says) confirms the cluster's voice-frame — Jñāneśvar narrating Arjuna's quoted question to his audience; the third-person पार्थु म्हणे is the framing-phrase, the first-person interrogatives दिसे / असे / बोलावें are Arjuna's speech-content)

Word-by-word gloss

Marathi	Meaning
ऐसा	such / this kind of
बलात्कारु एकु	one [single] forceful-thing / one bal-ātkāra
दिसे	is seen / appears
तो	that
कवणाचा	of whom / whose
एथ	here
आग्रहो असे	is the insistence / pressing-demand
हें बोलावें हृषीकेशें	let this be spoken by Hṛṣīkeśa
पार्थु म्हणे	Pārtha says

Literal translation

English: "Such a force is seen — whose insistence is this, here? Let Hṛṣīkeśa speak this. So says Pārtha."

मराठी (आधुनिक): "असा एक बळजबरीने ओढणारा प्रकार दिसतो — हा कोणाचा आग्रह आहे? हे हृषीकेशांनीच सांगावे — असे पार्थ म्हणतो."

The closing demand. After seven ovis of unfolding the puzzle, the question crystallizes into a single demand: whose insistence is this? The Sanskrit had asked केन प्रयुक्तः (impelled-by-what); the Marathi reads it as whose (कवणाचा) — converting the bare causal-instrumental into a personal-attributive. The force is not a what but a whose. This converts the question from what mechanism is this? to who is the insistent-one? — and prepares Krishna's BG-3.37 answer to name an enemy (वैरिन्), a personal-agent (kāma, krodha) rather than an impersonal mechanism.

The vocative हृषीकेशें (Hṛṣīkeśa = Lord-of-the-indriyas) is a Jñāneśvar interpretive-substitution for Sanskrit वार्ष्णेय (Vārṣṇeya, Vṛṣṇi-clan-scion). The Sanskrit chose a clan-vocative; the Marathi chooses a thematically-loaded vocative — the question is about the indriya-faculty being overridden against its owner's will, and the most-apt addressee is the Lord-of-the-indriyas, not the bare clan-Lord. This is a precision interpretive move worth marking corpus-wide as the thematic-vocative-substitution pattern.

The closing पार्थु म्हणे (Pārtha says) is the explicit speaker-attribution at the question's end — confirming for the listener (and the modern reader) that the entire cluster has been Arjuna's quoted speech, narrated by Jñāneśvar. The voice-frame closes cleanly here; cluster 0134 will open with Krishna's श्रीभगवानुवाच — काम एष क्रोध एष reply.

Metaphor-unfold

No extended metaphor in this ovi.

Nāth-yogic layer

No Nāth-yogic referent in this ovi. The vocative हृषीकेश (Lord-of-the-indriyas) is the standard Gītā-vocative for Krishna in his sense-Lord aspect; it names the Lord's relation to the indriyas (Hṛṣī + Īśa = senses + Lord), not a Nāth-tantric body-locus or cakra.

Cross-references

Internal:
foreshadows 3.239 (cluster 0134, BG-3.37). The next ovi will open with श्रीभगवानुवाच — काम एष क्रोध एष (the Blessed Lord said — this is kāma, this is krodha) — Krishna's direct answer to 3.238's कवणाचा एथ आग्रहो (whose insistence is this here). The question-answer pair is one of the chapter's three architectural pairs.
Tukaram parallel: none for this specific closing-form; the cluster-as-a-whole's Tukaram resonances are at 3.233 and 3.236 with Tukaram 2730.
Source citations:
Bhagavad Gītā 3.36 — direct-paraphrase. The Marathi closing-form कवणाचा एथ आग्रहो असे ≈ Sanskrit केन प्रयुक्तः, with the interpretive shift from impersonal-cause to personal-attributive.

Modern application

The therapy-session in which the client, after months of working a specific pattern, finally arrives at the question they have been circling: whose insistence is this in me? Not WHAT (the patterns are diagnosable, the mechanisms are nameable), but WHOSE (the patterns feel agentic, intentional, as-if-pursued-by-someone). The therapeutic moment of 3.238 is the moment the question moves from what's wrong with me? to what is the insistent-presence that keeps overriding me?.
The recovery-meeting moment where a member, after telling their relapse-story for the fourth time, finally pauses and says: I keep saying I did this, but it never feels like I did this; something does this through me; whose voice is this?. The question is exactly Arjuna's at 3.238 — the move from impersonal-mechanism (it happens) to personal-attributive (whose insistence?).
The contemplative who, having sat with a recurring affective-pattern for months, recognizes that the pattern has a character — a tone, a tactic, a recognizable-personality. Not random; not impersonal; something. The recognition that it has a who is the move 3.238 makes — and the recognition that the who can be named is the move BG-3.37 will make.

Sādhanā

Today, write down the answer to one question: In the area of life where I am repeatedly overridden against my own will, what is the CHARACTER of the overriding force? If it had a face, a voice, a personality — what would it look like?. Do not try to defeat it, do not try to integrate it. Just describe it. Five sentences maximum. The question is Arjuna's at 3.238 — whose insistence is this? — and the practice is the move from impersonal-it to personal-who. (Krishna's BG-3.37 answer at cluster 0134 will name the who — but the recognition that there IS a who is the present practice.)

Arc

Having closed the question with the demand that Hṛṣīkeśa speak the answer, the cluster ends. The next cluster (0134, BG-3.37) opens with श्रीभगवानुवाच — काम एष क्रोध एष रजोगुणसमुद्भवः — महाशनो महापाप्मा विद्ध्येनमिह वैरिणम् — the Blessed Lord's direct naming: this is kāma, this is krodha, sprung from rajo-guṇa, great-devourer, great-evil, know this here to be the enemy. The chapter's question-answer hinge is complete.

Cluster summary

Core teaching. Arjuna asks Krishna: even those who KNOW what to avoid and what to take — by what force are they impelled to commit pāpa against their own will, as if yoked by violence? The seven Marathi ovis unfold the puzzle of moral-akrasia in cumulative force: even knowers fall (3.232), even sarvajñas transgress (3.233), the sighted act blind (3.234), forest-dwellers return to town (3.235), the hiding-resisting agent is forcibly thrust in (3.236), the rejected sticks to the soul (3.237), and the question lands: whose insistence is this? (3.238).

Theme tags. BG-3.36, akrasia, knower-still-falls, bal-ātkāra, Arjuna-question, moral-puzzle, vārṣṇeya-vocative, phenomenology-of-relapse, setup-for-kāma-krodha-diagnosis.

Extended metaphors present. Three: blind-man-and-chaff (3.234), forest-dweller-returning-to-town (3.235), jīva-glued-to-what-it-rejects (3.237). All three are Jñāneśvar interpretive-additions beyond the bare Sanskrit, dramatizing Arjuna's अनिच्छन्नपि बलादिव नियोजितः into vivid phenomenology.

Chapter arc position. The structural-hinge of adhyāya 3. After Krishna's apex-doctrine (BG-3.30, cluster 0127 — karma-sannyāsa-to-Me), audience-clause (BG-3.31), paradharma-warning (BG-3.35, cluster 0132), and path-bandits diagnosis (BG-3.34), Arjuna interrupts with the chapter's deepest question: WHY does the knower still fall? The cluster's seven ovis exhaustively unfold the puzzle, demanding Krishna's BG-3.37 answer (kāma-krodha-as-enemy) as the only adequate response. Without 3.36's question the chapter's closing diagnosis would be unmotivated; with it, BG-3.37-43 becomes load-bearing.

Connects to next śloka. BG-3.37 — श्रीभगवानुवाच — काम एष क्रोध एष रजोगुणसमुद्भवः — महाशनो महापाप्मा विद्ध्येनमिह वैरिणम् (the Blessed Lord said: it is this kāma, this krodha, sprung from rajo-guṇa — great-devourer, great-evil — know this here to be the enemy). Krishna's answer NAMES the force Arjuna's 3.238 has just demanded: कवणाचा एथ आग्रहो is answered as this kāma, this krodha. The two clusters (0133-0134) are a question-answer pair — one of the chapter's three architectural-pairs alongside the doctrine-and-audience (0127-0128) and the yajña-cosmogony pair at clusters 0107-0108. Cluster 0134 is the chapter's diagnostic-arrival.