FolioCorpusBhagavad-gītā

Bhagavad-gītā 1.36

पापमेवाश्रयेदस्मान्हत्वैतानाततायिनः । तस्मान्नार्हा वयं हन्तुं धार्तराष्ट्रान्सबान्धवान् । स्वजनं हि कथं हत्वा सुखिनः स्याम माधव ॥ ३६ ॥
pāpam evāśrayed asmān
[paapam evaashrayed asmaan]
hatvaitān ātatāyinaḥ
[hatvaitaan aatataayinah]
tasmān nārhā vayaṁ hantuṁ
[tasmaan naarhaa vayam hantum]
dhārtarāṣṭrān sa-bāndhavān
[dhaartaraashtraan sa-baandhavaan]
sva-janaṁ hi kathaṁ hatvā
[sva-janam hi katham hatvaa]
sukhinaḥ syāma mādhava
[sukhinah syaama maadhava]
Word-for-word
pāpam — vices eva — certainly āśrayet — must come upon asmān — us hatvā — by killing etān — all these ātatāyinaḥ — aggressors tasmāt — therefore na — never arhāḥ — deserving vayam — we hantum — to kill dhārtarāṣṭrān — the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra sa - bāndhavān — along with friends sva - janam — kinsmen hi — certainly katham — how hatvā — by killing sukhinaḥ — happy syāma — will we become mādhava — O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune .
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
pāpam evāśrayed asmān
pāpam
vices
eva
certainly
āśrayet
must come upon
asmān
us
hatvaitān ātatāyinaḥ
hatvā
by killing
etān
all these
ātatāyinaḥ
aggressors
tasmān nārhā vayaṁ hantuṁ
tasmāt
therefore
na
never
arhāḥ
deserving
vayam
we
hantum
to kill
dhārtarāṣṭrān sa-bāndhavān
dhārtarāṣṭrān
the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra
sa - bāndhavān
along with friends
sva-janaṁ hi kathaṁ hatvā
sva - janam
kinsmen
hi
certainly
katham
how
hatvā
by killing
sukhinaḥ syāma mādhava
sukhinaḥ
happy
syāma
will we become
mādhava
O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune .
Important Words
  • pāpam — sin, vice
    *Pāpa* — sin, the binding residue of unrighteous action. Opposite of *puṇya*. Arjuna's anxiety is about acquiring *pāpa*. The Gītā will later teach (BG 18.66) that complete surrender frees one even from *pāpa*. But here Arjuna treats *pāpa* as the absolute risk — not yet seeing that the deeper risk is *not doing one's duty*.
  • ātatāyinaḥ — aggressors
    *Ā-tan* — to stretch out (a weapon), to be drawn against another. Technical legal term: the six classes of aggressor (per Manu, Vasiṣṭha) whose killing incurs no sin. Arjuna *names* the Kauravas with this technical word — and then refuses what the technical word permits. He overrides śāstra with sentiment.
  • arhāḥ — deserving, fit
    *Arh* — to be worthy of, to deserve. Same root as *arhat*. Arjuna says "we are not *arha* — not fit — to kill." The dharma question is precisely about *fitness*. The Gītā will teach that *adhikāra* (right, fitness) is not a question of personal preference but of place in the cosmic order.
  • sva - janam — kinsmen
    Same compound as v.28. Repeated. Arjuna keeps using *sva-jana*. The *sva*-pronoun haunts the chapter as a kind of poison. The Gītā will redefine *sva* in chapter 2: *the self is not the body* — and so *sva-jana* must be redefined too.
  • mādhava — O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune
    *Mādhava* again. Arjuna keeps calling Kṛṣṇa by the *Lakṣmī's-husband* epithet — naming the source of all fortune even as he refuses the fortune that would come of victory. He addresses the giver of *prosperity* in order to refuse *prosperity*. The verse holds the contradiction taut.
Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and our friends. What should we gain, O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?
Classical Sanskrit analysis शास्त्रीय विश्लेषण
How Sanskrit scholars read this verse — split, rearranged, grammar-tagged. For the plain English distilled meaning, jump to Plain meaning below.
Auto-generated study layers — original analysis of the public-domain śloka. Review against a published edition for academic work.
Plain meaning (तात्पर्य · Tātparya)
Arjuna grants that the Kauravas are 'ātatāyins' (aggressors deserving death) — yet argues sin would still cling. Killing kin cannot produce happiness, whatever the dharma-śāstra says. He is pitting personal anguish against scriptural license.
Further notes (विवरण · Vivaraṇa)
Ātatāyī is a technical term in Manu-smṛti and Vasiṣṭha-smṛti: one of six who may be killed without the killer incurring sin — those who set fires, poison food, attack with weapons, steal land or wealth, or seize another's wife. Arjuna acknowledges this status but argues kinship overrides the exemption. Tradition reads this as Arjuna's first major mistake: mistaking compassion for dharma. The opt. syām ('could we be') sounds rhetorical-incredulous rather than genuinely uncertain.
Prose order (अन्वय · Anvaya)
हे माधव! एतान् आततायिनः हत्वा पापम् एव अस्मान् आश्रयेत्; तस्मात् वयं स-बान्धवान् धार्तराष्ट्रान् हन्तुं न अर्हाः; स्व-जनं हत्वा हि कथं सुखिनः स्याम?
he mādhava! etān ātatāyinaḥ hatvā pāpam eva asmān āśrayet; tasmāt vayaṃ sa-bāndhavān dhārtarāṣṭrān hantuṃ na arhāḥ; sva-janaṃ hatvā hi kathaṃ sukhinaḥ syāma?
O Mādhava, having killed these aggressors, sin would attach itself to us; therefore we are not fit to kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra along with our kinsmen; for how, having slain our own people, could we be happy?
Word split (पदच्छेद · Padaccheda)
पापम् एव आश्रयेत् अस्मान् हत्वा एतान् आततायिनः । तस्मात् न अर्हाः वयं हन्तुं धार्तराष्ट्रान् स-बान्धवान् । स्व-जनं हि कथं हत्वा सुखिनः स्याम माधव ॥
pāpam eva āśrayet asmān hatvā etān ātatāyinaḥ | tasmāt na arhāḥ vayaṃ hantuṃ dhārtarāṣṭrān sa-bāndhavān | sva-janaṃ hi kathaṃ hatvā sukhinaḥ syāma mādhava ||
Grammar (व्याकरण · Vyākaraṇa)
SanskritIASTGrammarMeaning
पापम् pāpam पाप (n.) nom.sg. (nominative singular) sin
एव eva ind. (indeclinable), emphatic
आश्रयेत् āśrayet आ+√श्रि opt. (optative) 3sg.par. (parasmaipada / active voice) would resort to, attach to
अस्मान् asmān अस्मद् acc.pl. (accusative plural) us
हत्वा hatvā √हन् abs. (absolutive) having killed
एतान् etān एतद् dem. (demonstrative) pron. (pronoun) acc.pl. (accusative plural)m. these
आततायिनः ātatāyinaḥ आततायिन् (m.) acc.pl. (accusative plural) aggressors (with weapon drawn)
तस्मात् tasmāt ind. (indeclinable) therefore
न na ind. (indeclinable) not
अर्हाः arhāḥ अर्ह adj. nom.pl. (nominative plural)m. fit, deserving
वयम् vayam अस्मद् nom.pl. (nominative plural) we
हन्तुम् hantum √हन् inf. (infinitive) to kill
धार्तराष्ट्रान् dhārtarāṣṭrān धार्तराष्ट्र (m.) acc.pl. (accusative plural) sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra
स-बान्धवान् sa-bāndhavān सह + बान्धव (m.) acc.pl. (accusative plural), bahuvrīhi cpd. (compound) together with relatives
स्व-जनम् sva-janam स्व + जन (m.) acc.sg. (accusative singular), karmadhāraya cpd. (compound) own people
हि hi ind. (indeclinable) indeed, for
कथम् katham ind. (indeclinable) how
सुखिनः sukhinaḥ सुखिन् adj. nom.pl. (nominative plural)m. happy
स्याम syāma √अस् opt. (optative) 1pl.par. (parasmaipada / active voice) could we be
माधव mādhava माधव (m.) voc.sg. (vocative singular) O Mādhava
Purport

According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: (1) a poison giver, (2) one who sets fire to the house, (3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, (4) one who plunders riches, (5) one who occupies another’s land, and (6) one who kidnaps a wife. Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors. Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting any ordinary man, but Arjuna was not an ordinary person. He was saintly by character, and therefore he wanted to deal with them in saintliness. This kind of saintliness, however, is not for a kṣatriya. Although a responsible man in the administration of a state is required to be saintly, he should not be cowardly. For example, Lord Rāma was so saintly that people even now are anxious to live in the kingdom of Lord Rāma ( rāma-rājya ), but Lord Rāma never showed any cowardice. Rāvaṇa was an aggressor against Rāma because Rāvaṇa kidnapped Rāma’s wife, Sītā, but Lord Rāma gave him sufficient lessons, unparalleled in the history of the world. In Arjuna’s case, however, one should consider the special type of aggressors, namely his own grandfather, own teacher, friends, sons, grandsons, etc. Because of them, Arjuna thought that he should not take the severe steps necessary against ordinary aggressors. Besides that, saintly persons are advised to forgive. Such injunctions for saintly persons are more important than any political emergency. Arjuna considered that rather than kill his own kinsmen for political reasons, it would be better to forgive them on grounds of religion and saintly behavior. He did not, therefore, consider such killing profitable simply for the matter of temporary bodily happiness. After all, kingdoms and pleasures derived therefrom are not permanent, so why should he risk his life and eternal salvation by killing his own kinsmen? Arjuna’s addressing of Kṛṣṇa as “Mādhava,” or the husband of the goddess of fortune, is also significant in this connection. He wanted to point out to Kṛṣṇa that, as the husband of the goddess of fortune, He should not induce Arjuna to take up a matter which would ultimately bring about misfortune. Kṛṣṇa, however, never brings misfortune to anyone, to say nothing of His devotees.

— A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda
Gauḍīya Ācāryas
Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura Gauḍīya
Translation
36. In killing these aggressors we will only incur sin. Therefore we should not kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra with their relatives. O Mādhava, how can we live happily, having killed our own relatives? 37-38. Even if they, overcome by greed, do not see the fault of destroying the family and the sin in killing friends, should not we, who see the fault in destroying the family, know how to withdraw from this sin, O Janārdana?
Commentary

But it is said: agnido garadaś caiva śastra-pāṇir dhanāpahaḥ kṣetra-dārāpahārī ca ṣaḍ ete hy ātatāyinaḥ The arsonist, one who poisons, one who attacks with weapons, the thief, the stealer of property and the stealer of ones wife are considered aggressors. Vasiṣṭha Smṛti 3.19 And also it is said: ātatāyinam āyāntaṁ hanyād evāvicārayan nātatāyi-vadhe doṣo hantur bhavati kaścana Without consideration, one should kill the aggressors, as there is no fault in killing them. Manu Smṛti 8.350 Thus the scriptures prescribe killing in the case of aggressors. Arjuna answers with this verse. Killing them, we will remain living, but we will be sinful. The above instructions are from artha-śāstra, but those instructions are weaker than those from dharma-śāstra. Yajñavalkya says: smṛtyor virodhe nyāyas tu balavān vyavahārataḥ artha -śāstrāt tu balavān dharma-śāstram iti sthitiḥ It is established that where there is conflict of rules in two smṛti statements, reasoning must prevail in choosing the correct rule. However, in reasoning, the rules of dharma śāstra are stronger than those of artha-śāstra. Yajñavalkya Smṛti 2.21 Thus, though they are aggressors, they are also ācāryas. In killing ācāryas, we will incur sin. We cannot also be happy in this life. Thus he says “How can we be happy in this life, having killed our own people?”

“Why does the opposing side want to fight then?” He answers with this verse. “They, overcome by greed, do not see any fault in destroying the family, or any sin in killing friends.”

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Gauḍīya
Translation
36. In killing these aggressors we will only incur sin. Therefore we should not kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra along with their relatives. O Mādhava, how can we live happily having killed our own relatives? 37-38. Even if they, overcome with greed, do not see the fault of destroying the family and the sin in killing friends, should not we, who see the fault in destroying the family, know how to withdraw from this sin, O Janārdana?
Commentary

agnido garadaś caiva śastra-pāṇir dhanāpahaḥ kṣetra-dārāpahārī ca ṣaḍ ete hy ātatāyinaḥ The arsonist, one who poisons, one who attacks with weapons, the thief, the stealer of property and the stealer of ones wife are considered aggressors. Vasiṣṭha Smṛti 3.19 And also it is said: ātatāyinam āyāntaṁ hanyād evāvicārayan nātatāyi-vadhe doṣo hantur bhavati kaścana Without consideration, one should kill the aggressors, as there is no fault in killing them. Manu Smṛti 8.350 “Therefore by scriptural injunction, it is justified to kill these six types of aggressors.” In this verse he replies to this argument. “Having killed them, the sin caused by killing relatives will come to us who remain.” This means that the statements of artha śastra as mentioned above are weaker than the statements of dharma śastra such as mā hiṁsyāt sarva-bhūtāni: do not afflict any living entity, for the smṛti also says artha-śāstrāt tu balavad dharma-śāstram iti sthitiḥ: the rules of dharma śāstra are stronger than those of artha śāstra. (Yajñavalkya Smṛti 2.21) Therefore killing Bhīṣma and others worthy of worship on the strength of the weaker artha śastra is certainly a cause of sin. In this verse Arjuna concludes his statement which started with na ca śreyo 'nupaśyāmi in verse 31. “Therefore (tasmāt) because of the commission of sin, and also because we cannot even achieve physical happiness in this life (stated in the verses above), we should not kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra who are our relatives,. Our enjoying the kingdom without our elders and friends meant for bringing happiness will actually bring sorrow. O Mādhava, husband of Lakṣmi, goddess of auspiciousness, [Note: The derivation of Mādhava is here mā meaning Lakṣmī and dhava meaning husband.] why do you instigate this war devoid of auspiciousness? ” Bg 1.37, Bg 1.38, Bg 1.37-38 YaÛPYaeTae Na PaXYaiNTa l/ae>aaePahTaceTaSa" ) ku-l/+aYak*-Ta& daez& iMa}ad]aehe c PaaTak-Ma( )) 37 )) k-Qa& Na jeYaMaSMaai>a" PaaPaadSMaaiṁviTaRTauMa( ) ku-l/+aYak*-Ta& daez& Pa[PaXYaiḤJaRNaadRNa )) 38 )) yady apy ete na paśyanti lobhopahata-cetasaḥ kula-kṣaya-kṛtaṁ doṣaṁ mitra-drohe ca pātakam kathaṁ na jñeyam asmābhiḥ pāpād asmān nivartitum kula-kṣaya-kṛtaṁ doṣaṁ prapaśyadbhir janārdana yadi—if; api—even; ete—they; na—do not; paśyanti—see; lobha—by greed; upahata—overpowered; cetasaḥ—their hearts; kula-kṣaya—in killing the family; kṛtam—done; doṣam—fault; mitra-drohe—in quarreling with friends; ca—also; pātakam—sinful reactions; katham—why; na—should not; jñeyam—be known; asmābhiḥ—by us; pāpāt—from sins; asmāt—these; nivartitum—to cease; kula-kṣaya—in the destruction of a dynasty; kṛtam—done; doṣam—crime; prapaśyadbhiḥ—by those who can see; janārdana—O Kṛṣṇa.

“But it is justified to take part in this war since they have invoked it. The scriptures say that it is understood for the kṣatriya that he should not reject either a game of dice or a fight if challenged: āhūto na nivarteta dyūtād api raṇād api.” (Mahābhārata, 3.56.8) Arjuna answers this argument in two verses. “Being motivated by greed, they are inclined to sinful acts. We, without having greed, do not have the inclination to commit sin. Consciounsess of attaining an agreeable result alone should be the motivation.” The agreeable result should not be linked with undesirable results. Thus it is said: phalato’pi ca yat karma nānārthenānubadhyate kevala-prīti-hetutvāt tad-dharma iti kathyate Dharma is said to be that action performed only out of affection, whose effect does not lead to evil. Śloka Vārtika 2.268 [Note: This is a work by Kumarila Bhaṭṭa. Another book gave this reference, but I did not find the quotation there.] Though there are such śruti statements as śyenenābhicaran yajeta: one who wants to curse others should perform the śyena sacrifice (Apastambha Śrauta Sūtras 22.4.13), it is not proper for us to partake of this war because of its undesirable consequences, as is the case with the śyena sacrifice. The injunction of not refusing a challenge to fight relates to matters which do not bring about destruction of the family. The meaning of Janārdana is the same as in verse 35. (Therefore you should cause the suffering, since you do not incur sin.)

Bhūrijana Dāsa Gauḍīya
Translation
Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhrtarastra and our friends. What should we gain, O Krsna, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen? (cn/DS) Arjuna says specifically "sin will overcome us if we kill such aggressors". But Srila Prabhupada explains in his Purport that according to the Vedic injunctions (artha‑sastra), the aggressors are allowed to be killed and there is no sin for killing them. There are six types of aggressors. Each one of them are mentioned: (1) a poison giver, (2) one who sets fire to the house, (3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, (4) one who plunders riches, (5) one who occupies another's land and (6) one who kidnaps another's wife. Each and everyone of these acts of aggression were commited by the Kauravas on the Pandavas: (1) They gave a poison cake to Bhima; (2) They set fire to the house of the Pandavas after kindly inviting them to live in that new mansion specially built for them; (3) While the Pandavas were in exile, in the forest, the Kauravas attacked them with deadly weapons; (4) They were right now occupying the Pandavas' land; (5) Draupadi was kidnapped by those aggressors; (6) All their riches were taken away by means of treachery. So, they could be killed according to 'artha‑sastra', but Arjuna is saying "sin will overcome us by this type of killing". Why? Because though according to 'artha‑sastra', diplomacy and war, it is alright to do this, according to 'dharma‑sastra', which is an higher principle, it is not proper, in any case, to kill one's friends and relatives. They should be forgiven or sin will overcome us.
Study Notes — Gauranga Priya Dāsa
Gauranga Priya Dāsa Study
Bhakti-śāstrī Notes, ISKCON Chowpatty (2009)
Theme

The Pāṇḥavas suffered each of these forms of aggression at the hands of the Kauravas, who were

now poised to attack. Duryodhana fed Bhīma a poisoned cake. He arranged for a house of lac to

be built for the Pāṇḥavas and conspired to have it set ablaze while they slept. Śakuni cheated in a

dice game and plundered all their wealth. The Kauravas then occupied the Pāṇḥavas’ land. Finally,

they stole Draupadī by foul means, once during the dice game and once when Jayadratha at-

tempted to kidnap her. Artha-śāstra allows that such aggressors be killed. Why then does Arjuna

say sin will overcome him by killing them”? According to Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, Ar-

juna is speaking from the level of dharma-śāstra, not artha-śāstra. Dharma-śāstra, which is more au-

thoritative, propounds that killing one’s friends and relatives is never permitted.

Text1.40

Kṛṣṇa called Arjuna “Pārtha” to remind him of his kṣatriya heritage. In this verse, Arjuna calls Kṛṣṇa

“Vārṣṇeya,” descendant of Vṛṣṇi, because he wants Kṛṣṇa to think how He would feel if the Vṛṣṇi

dynasty were on the verge of destruction.

Classical Ācāryas
Śrī Śaṅkarācārya Classical
Translation
1.36 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.
Śrī Rāmānujācārya Classical
Translation
1.26 - 1.47 Arjuna said - Sanjaya said Sanjaya continued: The high-minded Arjuna, extremely kind, deeply friendly, and supremely righteous, having brothers like himself, though repeatedly deceived by the treacherous attempts of your people like burning in the lac-house etc., and therefore fit to be killed by him with the help of the Supreme Person, nevertheless said, 'I will not fight.' He felt weak, overcome as he was by his love and extreme compassion for his relatives. He was also filled with fear, not knowing what was righteous and what unrighteous. His mind was tortured by grief, because of the thought of future separation from his relations. So he threw away his bow and arrow and sat on the chariot as if to fast to death.
Śrī Abhinavagupta Classical
Translation
1.35 1.44 Nihatya etc. upto anususruma. Sin alone is the agent in the act of slaying these desperadoes. Therefore here the idea is this : These ememies of ours have been slain, i.e., have been take possession of, by sin. Sin would come to us also after slaying them. Sin in this context is the disregard, on account of greed etc., to the injurious conseences like the ruination of the family and the like. That is why Arjuna makes a specific mention of the [ruin of the] family etc., and of its duties in the passage 'How by slaying my own kinsmen etc'. The act of slaying, undertaken with an individualizing idea about its result, and with a particularizing idea about the person to be slain, is a great sin. To say this very thing precisely and to indicate the intensity of his own agony, Arjuna says only to himself [see next sloka]:
Swami Sivananda Classical
Translation
1.36. By killing these sons of Dhritarashtra, what pleasure can be ours, O Janardana? Only sin will accrue to us from killing these felons.
Commentary

1.36 निहत्य having slain? धार्तराष्ट्रान् sons of Dhritarashtra? नः to us? का what? प्रीतिः pleasure? स्यात् may be? जनार्दन O Janardana? पापम् sin? एव only? आश्रयेत् would take hold? अस्मान् to us? हत्वा having killed? एतान् these? आततायिनः felons.Commentary Janardana means one who is worshipped by all for prosperity and salvation -- Krishna.He who sets fire to the house of another? who gives poision? who runs with sword to kill? who has plundered wealth and lands? and who has taken hold of the wife of somody else is an atatayi. Duryodhana had done all these evil actions.

Swami Gambhīrānanda Classical
Translation
1.36 O Janardana, what happiness shall we derive by killing the sons of Dhrtarastra? Sin alone will accrue to us by killing these felons.
Shri Purohit Swami Classical
Translation
1.36 My Lord! What happiness can come from the death of these sons of Dhritarashtra? We shall sin if we kill these desperate men.
Related values & verses
Related values
Tyaga (Renunciation / Letting Go)Karuna (Kindness / Compassion)Ahimsa (Non-violence / Compassion)Tapas (Austerity / Discipline)Guru Bhakti (Reverence for Teacher)Maitri (Friendship / Goodwill)Daksya (Resourcefulness / Skill)
Related verses
BG 2.31 BG 2.38 BG 18.17 SB 1.7.36 SB 7.5.37 SB 10.44.39 CC Madhya 22.141 CC Madhya 22.167 CC Ādi 17.153 Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.2Īśa Upaniṣad 2
Concepts
Dharma
Related lectures
Personal Guidance
The soul recoils at the thought of harming others — but dharma sometimes asks of us what sentiment cannot accept.
Practical Applications
  • Distinguish between conscience (which serves dharma) and squeamishness (which serves the small self).
  • When dharma is hard, do not look for a moral loophole that leaves your image intact.
  • Trust that following Kṛṣṇa's instruction is safer than following your sentiment.
Reflection Questions
  • Where am I dressing up sentiment as conscience?
  • What dharma am I avoiding because it would make me look bad?
Analogy

Arjuna invokes the doctrine of *ātatāyī* — the aggressor whom dharma permits one to kill — and then refuses to apply it. Knowing the rule and refusing the rule are not the same as transcending the rule. He is using his śāstric education against his śāstric duty.

Stories
The six ātatāyins

Vasiṣṭha and Manu both teach: the aggressor (*ātatāyī*) is one of six — the arsonist, the poisoner, the man with weapon raised, the property-thief, the wife-thief, the land-thief. Dharma permits the killing of an *ātatāyī* without sin. Duryodhana fits at least four of the six categories: he tried to poison Bhīma at the lac-house, set fire to the Pāṇḍava palace, attempted to humiliate Draupadī, and seized the Pāṇḍava kingdom.

Arjuna knows this. He uses the word *ātatāyī* himself. And then he argues: even so, we should not kill them. The Mahābhārata's irony is sharp — Arjuna is more rigorous than the law, in a direction the law itself does not require. The Gītā will treat this excess-of-conscience not as virtue but as confusion: there is no *higher* dharma than discharging the dharma that has been given. Squeamishness above one's duty is not transcendence; it is desertion.

📝 My note

Source: vedabase.io

← Read full Chapter 1