Devanagari
पापमेवाश्रयेदस्मान्हत्वैतानाततायिनः ।
तस्मान्नार्हा वयं हन्तुं धार्तराष्ट्रान्सबान्धवान् ।
स्वजनं हि कथं हत्वा सुखिनः स्याम माधव ॥ ३६ ॥
Verse text
pāpam evāśrayed asmān
hatvaitān ātatāyinaḥ
tasmān nārhā vayaṁ hantuṁ
dhārtarāṣṭrān sa-bāndhavān
sva-janaṁ hi kathaṁ hatvā
sukhinaḥ syāma mādhava
Synonyms
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.
Translation
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?
Translation (Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura)
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?
Translation (Baladeva Vidyabhusana)
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?
Translation (Bhurijana Dasa)
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.
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.
Purport (Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura)
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. Yajṣavalkya 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. Yajṣavalkya 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.”
Purport (Baladeva Vidyabhusana)
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. (Yajṣavalkya 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 jṣeyam 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; jṣeyam—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.)