Previous Verse
Next Verse

Shloka 11

Ātma-saṃyama-dharma: One-pointedness of Mind and Senses (शुक–व्यास संवादः)

इत्येतच्छोतुमिच्छामि प्रमाणं तूभयं कथम्‌ । कर्मणामविरोधेन कथं मोक्ष: प्रवर्तते

ity etac chrotum icchāmi pramāṇaṁ tūbhayaṁ katham | karmaṇām avirodhena kathaṁ mokṣaḥ pravartate ||

شُک نے کہا—میں یہی سننا چاہتا ہوں کہ یہ دونوں باتیں کس طرح معتبر ہو سکتی ہیں۔ اور کرموں سے ٹکراؤ کیے بغیر موکش کیسے حاصل ہوتا ہے؟ براہِ کرم یہ بات واضح فرمائیے۔

इतिthus
इति:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootइति
एतत्this
एतत्:
Karma
TypePronoun
Rootएतद्
FormNeuter, Accusative, Singular
श्रोतुम्to hear
श्रोतुम्:
TypeVerb
Rootश्रु
FormInfinitive (Tumun)
इच्छामिI wish/desire
इच्छामि:
TypeVerb
Rootइष्
FormPresent (Lat), 1st, Singular, Parasmaipada
प्रमाणम्authority/valid proof
प्रमाणम्:
Karma
TypeNoun
Rootप्रमाण
FormNeuter, Accusative, Singular
तुbut/indeed
तु:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootतु
उभयम्both (of them)
उभयम्:
Karma
TypeNoun
Rootउभय
FormNeuter, Accusative, Singular
कथम्how?
कथम्:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootकथम्
कर्मणाम्of actions
कर्मणाम्:
TypeNoun
Rootकर्मन्
FormNeuter, Genitive, Plural
अविरोधेनwithout contradiction / by non-opposition
अविरोधेन:
Karana
TypeNoun
Rootअविरोध
FormMasculine, Instrumental, Singular
कथम्how?
कथम्:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootकथम्
मोक्षःliberation
मोक्षः:
Karta
TypeNoun
Rootमोक्ष
FormMasculine, Nominative, Singular
प्रवर्ततेproceeds/comes about/is attained
प्रवर्तते:
TypeVerb
Rootप्रवृत्
FormPresent (Lat), 3rd, Singular, Atmanepada

शुक उवाच

Ś
Śuka (Śukadeva)

Educational Q&A

The verse frames a central śāstric problem: Vedic teachings sometimes prescribe action (karma, duties/rites) and elsewhere praise renunciation. Śuka asks how both can be valid authorities and how liberation can arise without contradicting the domain of duty—inviting a reconciliation such as differing contexts/eligibilities, stages of life, or inner renunciation while outwardly performing duty.

Śuka, in dialogue with his father (traditionally Vyāsa), requests clarification on an apparent contradiction in scripture: ‘perform action’ versus ‘abandon action.’ He seeks an interpretive principle that preserves the authority of both and a practical account of how mokṣa is attained without rejecting prescribed conduct.