Gītā 02.54 – Non-literal meaning illumines when literal meaning stumps

Audio link: https://www.thespiritualscientist.com/gita-02-54-non-literal-meaning-illumines-when-literal-meaning-stumps/

arjuna uvāca
sthita-prajñasya kā bhāṣā
samādhi-sthasya keśava
sthita-dhīḥ kiṁ prabhāṣeta
kim āsīta vrajeta kim (BG 2.54)

Word for word:
arjunaḥ uvāca — Arjuna said; sthita-prajñasya — of one who is situated in fixed Kṛṣṇa consciousness; kā — what; bhāṣā — language; samādhi-sthasya — of one situated in trance; keśava — O Kṛṣṇa; sthita-dhīḥ — one fixed in Kṛṣṇa consciousness; kim — what; prabhāṣeta — speaks; kim — how; āsīta — does remain still; vrajeta — walks; kim — how.

Translation:
Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa, what are the symptoms of one whose consciousness is thus merged in transcendence? How does he speak, and what is his language? How does he sit, and how does he walk?

Explanation:
In the second chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa speaks continuously from verses 11 to 53—a total of 43 verses. Now, in this verse, Arjuna poses a question:
sthita-prajñasya kā bhāṣā: For a person who is sthita-prajña, one whose intelligence is well situated. Arjuna uses the word ‘prajña’, which Kṛṣṇa Himself has not used so far. However, ‘prajña’ is similar in meaning to ‘buddhi’—it refers to intelligence. Arjuna asks, kā bhāṣā—“What is the speech or language of such a person whose intelligence is steady?”
samādhi-sthasya keśava: Arjuna further describes the same person as samādhi-stha, one who is situated in samadhi, and addresses Kṛṣṇa as O Keśava.
sthita-dhīḥ kiṁ prabhāṣeta: How does such a steady-minded person converse?
kim āsīta vrajeta kim: How does he sit, and how does he walk?

We see that one of the most important aspects of understanding scripture is, at times, simply applying common sense. If we take the literal meaning here—kim āsīta vrajeta kim (“How does he sit, and how does he walk?”)—it is clear that Arjuna is not asking for lessons in fashion, nor is he referring to someone proficient in the art of style and posture.

They are on a battlefield, and both Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna are themselves highly charismatic personalities. Naturally, they have no need to discuss matters of external appearance or posture. Moreover, if we consider the preceding context, it is deeply philosophical—it speaks of those who renounce even scripturally ordained pious pleasures. In such a serious setting, it is evident that Arjuna is not referring to ordinary sitting or walking.

Hence, when the literal meaning does not make sense, the non-literal or contextual meaning must be explored. A standard example is often given in the scriptures—if someone says, “His house is on the river,” we understand that houses are not built ‘on’ the river itself, but on the ‘bank’ of the river. Though the word ‘bank’ is not explicitly stated, it is implied. In such cases, we cannot rigidly hold on to the literal meaning; instead, we must interpret the statement by adjusting it according to the context.

Here, the ācāryas have explained that the four questions Arjuna asks are not meant to be taken literally. In fact, the ācāryas do not explicitly state that these questions are non-literal; rather, they reveal their intended meaning by directly presenting the non-literal interpretations. Through their commentary, it becomes clear that Arjuna’s inquiries are to be understood in a deeper, more philosophical sense.

kā bhāṣā: Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna are conversing in Sanskrit, which is itself known as deva-bhāṣā, the language of the gods. It is not that enlightened persons speak in some separate, mystical language. Therefore, the word bhāṣā here does not refer to language in the conventional sense—whether English, Hindi, Marathi, German, Sanskrit, etc. It implies something deeper. The root bhāṣyate iti bhāṣā—bhāṣya refers to a commentary, and a ṭīkā is a sub-commentary or an elaboration upon a commentary. In essence, bhāṣā refers to that which comments on, explains, or describes. Thus, sthita-prajñasya kā bhāṣā means—how is such a self-realized person described? In other words, what are the symptoms by which such a person can be recognized?

The next phrase is kiṁ prabhāṣeta. Here, ‘prabhāṣeta’ means “how does the person use bhāṣā—language?” In other words, how does the person converse? It refers to how one responds in speech to the events of life. When facing the ups and downs of life, how does such a person react verbally? For example, some people become wild with elation when they succeed, and equally wild with fury when they don’t get what they want. So, the question is—how does this self-realized person respond in speech, regardless of life’s fluctuations?

sthita-prajñasya kā bhāṣā samādhi-sthasya keśava sthita-dhīḥ kiṁ prabhāṣeta—To ensure there is no ambiguity, Arjuna refers to the same person three times using different expressions: sthita-prajña in the first line, samādhi-sthasya in the second, and sthita-dhīḥ in the third. These are essentially synonymous, describing the same spiritually situated person from slightly different angles. In his response, Kṛṣṇa will also use these terms interchangeably to refer to that same self-realized soul.

The word ‘sthita-prajña’ means one whose intelligence is fixed. Kṛṣṇa has previously spoken of this in buddhir vyatitariṣyati (Bhagavad-gītā 2.52). Buddhi and prajña both refer to intelligence, so when the buddhi transcends confusion and becomes steady, it is described as sthita-prajña. This idea of fixed intelligence is elaborated in the next verse as well (2.53), where Kṛṣṇa says, yadā sthāsyati niścalā samādhāv acalā buddhis—acalā buddhi is synonymous with sthita-prajña. Similarly, ‘samādhi-sthasya’ in Arjuna’s question here corresponds with ‘samādhau’ in verse 53. Lastly, sthita-dhīḥ kiṁ prabhāṣeta—dhīḥ also means intelligence or consciousness. In essence, Arjuna is asking—for the person who is internally fixed, what are their characteristics?

kim āsīta vrajeta kim — What do these words mean? Āsīta literally means ‘to sit’, but in this context, it is not referring to physical sitting. Rather, it metaphorically indicates keeping the senses under control and disciplined—not allowing them to wander restlessly. Just as the senses become relatively inactive when one is seated calmly, āsīta here points to a state of restraint and inner stillness. So, Arjuna’s first question, kim āsīta, essentially means—how does such a person restrain the senses and maintain inner discipline?

Next, vrajeta kim — how does such a person move? Vrajeta means ‘to move about’ or ‘to act’. We cannot live motionless, completely disengaged from action or the world around us. Life requires action, and the senses are bound to engage in activities. So, the question is—how does this person move or act in the world? How does one remain engaged in necessary activities while maintaining control over the senses and actions? This is the essence of the second question: vrajeta kim.

In essence, the four questions are:
1. What are the symptoms of the person?
2. How does the person speak?
3. How does the person control the senses and keep them silent?
4. How does the person engage the senses, or how does the person deal with the senses while being engaged in the world?

These questions will be answered by Kṛṣṇa from verses 55 to 72. The breakdown of the verses corresponding to each answer is as follows:
• 1st question: Verses 55–56 answer the first question. Verse 55 describes the symptoms of a self-realized person, outlining two specific traits. Verse 56 explains the inner disposition of such a person.
• 2nd question: How this inner disposition expresses itself in speech is addressed in verse 57. This verse is the direct answer to the second question. There is a seamless transition from the first question’s answer to the second. Verse 57 centrally responds to the question, ‘How does the person speak?’
• 3rd question: Verses 58–63 answer the third question, ‘How does the person sit?’ The metaphor of a tortoise drawing its limbs inward is used here, symbolizing the control of the senses and inactivity.
• 4th question: The fourth question, ‘How does the person move about?’ is addressed from verses 64 to 72. In verse 67, the metaphor of a boat on water is introduced to represent motion. The boat is in motion, but while moving, one must be skilful and cautious, which is indicated by this metaphor.
We will discuss these metaphors and related concepts in detail when we come to the respective verses. However, returning to this particular verse, what is the stimulus for Arjuna to ask this question?

We know that the broader context of this discussion is Arjuna’s indecision about whether he should fight or not. Although Kṛṣṇa has already urged Arjuna to fight, the final explicit call to action came in verses 37 and 38. Verse 37 says yuddhāya kṛta-niścayaḥ, and verse 38 says tato yuddhāya yujyasva. After that, Kṛṣṇa encourages Arjuna to focus on performing his duties—yogaḥ karmasu kauśalam (Bg 2.50) and karmaṇy-evādhikāras te (Bg 2.47). These verses emphasize the importance of practicing yoga, which involves engaging in action.

However, the description of the person given by Kṛṣṇa seemed quite otherworldly. This person’s consciousness is fixed, they are equipoised in both happiness and distress, and they are undisturbed by external circumstances. Naturally, Arjuna had the question—What are the symptoms of such a perfected person that Kṛṣṇa is describing? Would such a person fight in a war or not? By understanding the traits of this person, Arjuna is trying to figure out how he can attain that level of perfection. To become like that, should he fight or should he not fight?

Kṛṣṇa will answer the specific questions about the symptoms of that person. However, while the answer to these questions addresses the explicit inquiry, it does not fully resolve Arjuna’s unstated doubt, which is what underlies this question about the symptoms. That unspoken doubt—“Should I fight or not?”—will be explicitly raised by Arjuna at the beginning of the third chapter, in verses 3.1 and 3.2.

This is the first question Arjuna asks after Kṛṣṇa begins his serious discourse. Such questions arise repeatedly throughout the Bhagavad-gītā—except in the shorter chapters. These questions mark significant transitions or junctures in the discussion, propelling the conversation forward and keeping the Gītā an enlivening and absorbing book. Rather than dissolving into an abstract philosophical treatise, the Gītā remains a lively, stimulating, thought-provoking, and enriching exchange between two great individuals.

Thank you.