In plain words
With words that seem mixed, you appear to confuse my buddhi. Tell me decisively the one path by which I may attain the highest good.
Word for word
With speech as if mixed you confuse, as it were, my buddhi; having decided, tell that one [thing] by which I may attain the highest good.
व्यामिश्रेणेव वाक्येन बुद्धिं मोहयसीव मेतदेकं वद निश्चित्य येन श्रेयोऽहमाप्नुयाम्
Other commentaries
The commentators
▸Bhagavadgītābhāṣyam
किञ्च—
व्यामिश्रेणेव, यद्यपि विविक्ताभिधायी भगवान् , तथापि मम मन्दबुद्धेः व्यामिश्रमिव भगवद्वाक्यं प्रतिभाति । तेन मम बुद्धिं मोहयसि इव, मम बुद्धिव्यामोहापनयाय हि प्रवृत्तः त्वं तु कथं मोहयसि ? अतः ब्रवीमि बुद्धिं मोहयसि इव मे मम इति । त्वं तु भिन्नकर्तृकयोः ज्ञानकर्मणोः एकपुरुषानुष्ठानासम्भवं यदि मन्यसे, तत्रैवं सति तत् तयोः एकं बुद्धिं कर्म वा इदमेव अर्जुनस्य योग्यं बुद्धिशक्त्यवस्थानुरूपमिति निश्चित्य वद ब्रूहि, येन ज्ञानेन कर्मणा वा अन्यतरेण श्रेयः अहम् आप्नुयां प्राप्नुयाम् ; इति यदुक्तं तदपि नोपपद्यते ॥
यदि हि कर्मनिष्ठायां गुणभूतमपि ज्ञानं भगवता उक्तं स्यात् , तत् कथं तयोः ‘एकं वद’ इति एकविषयैव अर्जुनस्य शुश्रूषा स्यात् । न हि भगवता पूर्वमुक्तम् ‘अन्यतरदेव ज्ञानकर्मणोः वक्ष्यामि, नैव द्वयम्’ इति, येन उभयप्राप्त्यसम्भवम् आत्मनो मन्यमानः एकमेव प्रार्थयेत् ॥ २ ॥
In plain words
And there is more—
'As if with mixed words' — though Kṛṣṇa actually speaks with perfect clarity, to someone of my dull understanding, his words seem tangled together. 'You confuse my understanding, as it were' — you set out, surely, to clear away my confusion, so how is it that you're confusing me instead? That is why I say: 'you seem to be confusing my understanding.' Now, if you really believe that knowledge and action, having different kinds of practitioners, cannot both be practiced by the same person, then, that being so, decide which single one of the two — knowledge or action — actually suits me, given my present capacity, and tell me plainly: by which one, knowledge or action, can I reach the highest good? But even this request doesn't hold together either.
Suppose, for argument's sake, that knowledge had been included by the Lord as a mere subordinate part of the discipline of action. If that were so, why would Arjuna's whole desire to be taught be fixed on just one of the two — why would he ask, 'tell me the one'? The Lord never actually said, 'I will speak of only one of these, knowledge or action, never both' — no such statement exists — the kind of statement that would have led Arjuna to conclude he could not have both, and so ask for only one.
Close to the Sanskrit
And what further—
'As it were with mixed [words]': although the Lord speaks with clarity, still, to me, of dull understanding, the Lord's speech seems, as it were, mixed [i.e. confused]. 'By that you confuse,' as it were, 'my' understanding: you set about, indeed, to remove the confusion of my understanding, but how is it that you confuse [it instead]? Therefore I say, 'you confuse,' as it were, 'my' understanding — [thus is the verse's meaning]. Now, if you think that the practice of knowledge and action by a single person is impossible, because they have different agents, then, this being so, having ascertained that one of the two, either knowledge or action, is precisely what is suitable for me, Arjuna, corresponding to the condition of my intellectual capacity, tell me, say, by which one, knowledge or action, I might attain, might reach, the highest good — even this request is untenable.
For if, in the discipline of action, knowledge too, as a subordinate factor, had been stated by the Lord [to be included], then how could Arjuna's desire to hear, regarding those two, be exclusively about one topic — [as in] 'tell me one'? For it was not previously stated by the Lord: 'I will speak of only one of the two, knowledge or action — not both at all' — by which [statement], thinking the attainment of both impossible for himself, he would request only one.