Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 4

व्याख्या--'मधुसूदन' और 'अरिसूदन'--ये दो सम्बोधन देनेका तात्पर्य है कि आप दैत्योंको और शत्रुओंको मारनेवाले हैं अर्थात् जो दुष्ट स्वभाववाले, अधर्ममय आचरण करनेवाले और दुनियाको कष्ट देनेवाले मधु-कैटभ आदि दैत्य हैं, उनको भी आपने मारा है; और जो बिना कारण द्वेष रखते हैं, अनिष्ट करते हैं ,ऐसे शत्रुओंको भी आपने मारा है। परन्तु मेरे सामने तो पितामह भीष्म और आचार्य द्रोण खड़े हैं, जो आचरणोंमें सर्वथा श्रेष्ठ हैं, मेरेपर अत्यधिक स्नेह रखनेवाले हैं और प्यारपूर्वक मेरेको शिक्षा देनेवाले हैं। ऐसे मेरे परम हितैषी दादाजी और विद्यागुरुको मैं कैसे मारूँ?

Even though being awakened (instructed) thus by the Lord, Arjuna, not becoming awakened because his mind was overwhelmed by grief, expressed his own intent to the Lord present before him, starting with "Katham" (How).

Bhishma the Grandfather, and Drona the Teacher—in "Sankhye," i.e., in battle, O Madhusudana! Where it is improper to say "I will fight" even with words, how shall I fight with arrows?—this is the sentiment.

How shall I "Pratiyotsyami" (counter-fight) them with arrows? For they are worthy of worship, deserving to be honored with flowers and the like. "O Arisudana!"—You have destroyed all enemies (aris) effortlessly; thus is the Lord addressed.

With the intention that "Enemies are to be scorched, but not Gurus," he says "Katham" (How).

How shall I "Pratiyotsyami" (fight against/counter) Bhishma (the grandfather) and Drona (the teacher of archery—Guru) in "Sankhye" (on the battlefield) with arrows?

Because Bhishma and Drona are "Pujarhau"—worthy of worship. The meaning is: How can the killing of those two, who deserve worship with flowers etc., be done by me using arrows?

Addressing Him as "Madhusudana" and "Arisudana," he implies: "You too scorch only the wicked; therefore, it is not fitting for You to incite me to 'Kill Bhishma and Drona,' the Gurus who are not wicked."

The use of two addresses, "Madhusudana" and "Arisudana," is due to the lack of awareness of context caused by the agitation of grief. Therefore, some hold that there is no fault of redundancy (punarukti) in the meaning of "Madhusudana" here (as it reflects his emotional state).

Enemies, or those who are inherently wicked, should be scorched, but not kinsmen and saintly persons— with this sentiment, Arjuna spoke the verse starting with 'Katham' (How).

Addressing the Lord as 'Madhusudana' and 'Arisudana' (Slayer of enemies), he implies: 'You too scorch only wicked enemies; therefore, it is improper for You to say 'Kill Bhishma and Drona,' who are worthy of worship, guiltless, and my Gurus.'

Others hold that these two synonymous forms of address do not constitute the fault of tautology (repetition) because the speaker is agitated by grief.

'Ishubhih' (with arrows)—the implication is: when it is impossible (improper) to fight with them even with words, then what to speak of fighting with arrows!

Arjuna said. Partha, agitated by affection, compassion, and the fear of righteousness and unrighteousness (dharma and adharma), and failing to understand the most beneficial instruction spoken by the Lord, spoke this again.

'How shall I kill the Gurus like Bhishma and Drona who are to be held in high esteem? Furthermore, having killed them—who are excessively attached to worldly enjoyments—how could I enjoy those very pleasures, stained with their blood, while sitting on their thrones?'

'I have not desisted from battle due to cowardice, but because the war is unjust'—implying this, Arjuna spoke the verse starting with 'Katham.'

Bhishma and Drona are worthy of worship; how shall I fight against them?

And that too with arrows?

Where it is improper to say 'I will fight' even with words, how shall I fight with arrows?—this is the meaning.

'O Arisudana' means Slayer of enemies.

Now, pointing out that Arjuna's speech arose as a rebuttal to the Lord's command to fight (which was the 'most beneficial' instruction leading traditionally to the highest good, Moksha) because of his ignorance of this fact, and stating that such ignorance is rooted in the agitation caused by misplaced affection, the commentator introduces the reply with 'Punaraapi' (Again).

It is said 'He spoke this again' regarding the aforementioned subject. In the verse 'Katham' etc., the word 'cha' (and) is used to indicate the inclusion of things not explicitly mentioned (anukta-samuccaya), or the word 'adi' (etc.) implies that what is mentioned stands for what is not mentioned. The quality of being 'highly esteemable' (bahumantavyatva), intended by the word 'worthy of worship' (pujarha), is the reason, which is drawn from the subsequent verse and expressed here as 'Gurun' (Gurus).

'Bahumantavyan' means 'great souls' (mahanubhavan) as per the connection with the next verse, or they are naturally worthy of high esteem. Being the grandfather and the teacher of archery, they are extremely venerable—this is the sentiment. To not worship those who deserve worship with flowers etc. is itself a reckless act (sahasa); to kill them is an 'extreme atrocity' (ati-sahasa). Due to devotion to the Guru, one should fight against the Guru's opponents, not against the Gurus themselves—this is the purport of 'How shall I counter-fight the Gurus with arrows?'

The word 'Aham' (I) implies his famous lineage etc. 'Pratiyotsyami' (counter-fight) with arrows implies a fight to the finish (killing), which is clarified by the next verse, hence 'Hanishyami' (I will kill) is used in the explanation. By the words 'Madhusudana' and 'Arisudana,' it is hinted: 'Surely You did not slay Sandipani and others (Your gurus).' In 'Chartum' (to eat/move), the 'tumun' suffix indicates only the abstract noun (state of action), not a verb requiring a supplementary agent.

The meaning is: Although any livelihood could be resorted to, begging—which is another's duty (para-dharma)—is 'shreyah,' meaning 'prasashyataram' (more praiseworthy/better) in this world than enjoyments obtained by killing the Guru. The other-worldly sorrow resulting from killing Gurus of great power is extremely significant—this is the idea.

To remove the delusion that the meaning is contrary to the context, and by connecting with the word 'Katham' from the previous verse, and due to the force of extreme cruelty involved, and the contrast highlighted by the word 'Tu,' the term 'Kathantaram' (How much more/In what way) is used. The potential mood (Ling) in 'Bhunjiiya' (I would enjoy) is used in the sense of censure (garha), according to the grammatical rule 'Vibhasha kathami ling cha.'

Here, to remove the misconception of a Dvandva compound in 'Arthakaman,' the compound and the meaning of its two parts are explained as 'Bhogeshu atimatra-prasaktan' (excessively attached to enjoyments). The analysis is 'Those who have desire (kama) for objects (artha).' This is a 'Vyadhikarana Bahuvrihi' compound which is unavoidable here (despite the rule regarding 'janma' etc. as the final member). 'Arthyante' means objects of desire, i.e., enjoyments (bhoga), and 'Kama' will be explained as excessive attachment. Alternatively, 'Arthakaman' means 'those who desire wealth'; if they were desireless, seizing their enjoyments might be bearable, but this is like seizing food from the hungry—this is the sentiment.

To indicate a cruelty exceeding even killing, the meaning is established using words like 'Bhoga' (enjoyment) and 'Rudhira' (blood). The distinction highlighted by the word 'Tu' is explained by 'Taih' etc. The extreme cruelty intended by 'Ihaiva' (right here) is shown by 'Teshu' (on those seats/thrones) etc.

Enjoyments achieved by killing the Guru, being causes of remembering the blood-smeared Gurus, become difficult to enjoy (durbhoja) like the blood-smeared bodies themselves; thus, there is not even worldly happiness—this is the intent of the word 'Rudhira-pradigdha' (blood-stained). regarding 'Tadrudhirena-upasichya' (seasoned/sprinkled with their blood): Usually, a seasoning (upasechana) is something eaten that helps the consumption of other food; here, the implication is that both (the seasoning of blood and the enjoyment) are contrary/repulsive.

अर्जुन का लक्ष्य भ्रष्ट करने वाला कायरतापूर्ण तर्क किसी अविवेकी को ही उचित प्रतीत हो सकता है। अर्जुन के ये तर्क उस व्यक्ति के लिये अर्थशून्य हैं जो मन के संयम को न खोकर परिस्थिति को ठीक प्रकार से समझता है। उसके लिये ऐसी परिस्थितियाँ कोई समस्या नहीं उत्पन्न करतीं। वास्तव में देखा जाय तो यह युद्ध दो व्यक्तियों के मध्य वैयत्तिक वैमनस्य के कारण नहीं हो रहा है। इस समय पाण्डव सैन्य से पृथक् अर्जुन का कोई अस्तित्व नहीं है और न ही भीष्म और द्रोण पृथक् अस्तित्व रखते हैं। वे कौरवों की सेना के ही अंग हैं। किन्हीं सिद्धान्तों के कारण ही ये दोनों सेनायें परस्पर युद्ध के लिये खड़ी हुई हैं। कौरव अधर्म की नीति को अपनाकर युद्ध के लिये तत्पर हैं तो दूसरी ओर पाण्डव हिन्दूशास्त्रों में प्रतिपादित धर्म नीति के लिये युद्धेक्षु हैं।धर्म के श्रेष्ठ पक्ष होने तथा दोनों सेनाओं द्वारा लोकमत की अभिव्यक्ति के कारण अर्जुन को व्यक्तिगत आदर या अनादर अनुभव करने का कोई अधिकार नहीं था और न ही उसे यह अधिकार था कि अधर्म के पक्षधरों में से किसी व्यक्ति विशेष को सम्मान या असम्मान देने के लिये वह आग्रह करे। इस दृष्टिकोण से सम्पूर्ण परिस्थिति को न देखकर अर्जुन स्वयं को एक प्रथक् व्यक्ति समझता है और उसी अहंकारपूर्ण दृष्टिकोण से सम्पूर्ण परिस्थिति को देखता है। अर्जुन अपने आप को द्रोण के शिष्य और भीष्म के पौत्र के रूप में देखता है जबकि गुरु द्रोण और पितामह भीष्म भी अर्जुन को देख रहे थे परन्तु उनके मन में इस प्रकार का कोई भाव नहीं आता है क्याेंकि उन्हांेने अपने व्यक्तित्व को भूलकर अपना सम्पूर्ण तादात्म्य कौरव पक्ष के साथ स्थापित कर लिया था। संक्षेप में यह कहा जा सकता है कि अर्जुन का अहंकार ही उसकी मिथ्या धारणाओं और संभ्रम का कारण था।गीता के इस भाग पर मैंने देश के कई प्रसिद्ध व्यक्तियों के साथ विचार विमर्श किया और यह पाया कि वे अर्जुन के तर्क को उचित और न्यायपूर्ण मानते हैं। इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि यह अत्यन्त सूक्ष्म विषय है जिसका निर्णय होना परम आवश्यक है। संभवत व्यास जी ने यह विचार किया हो कि भावी पीढ़ियों के दिशा निर्देश के लिये इस गुत्थी को हिन्दू तत्त्वज्ञान के द्वारा सुलझाया जाये। जितना ही अधिक होगा तादात्म्य छोटेसे मैं परिच्छिन्न अहंकार के साथ हमारी उतनी ही अधिक समस्यायॆं और संभ्रम हमारे जीवन में आयेंगे। जब यह अहं व्यापक होकर किसी सेना आदर्श राष्ट्र अथवा युग के साथ तादात्म्य स्थापित करता है तो नैतिक दुर्बलता आदि का क्षय होने लगता है। पूर्ण नैतिक जीवन केवल वही व्यक्ति जी सकता है जिसने अपने शुद्ध आत्मस्वरूप को पहचान लिया है जो एकमेव अद्वितीय सर्वव्यापी एवं समस्त नाम रूपों में व्याप्त है। आगे हम देखेंगे कि भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण इस सत्य का उपदेश अर्जुन के मानसिक रोग के निवारणार्थ उपचार के रूप में करते हैं।

Responding to the rebuke given by words like 'Klaibya' (cowardice), Arjuna demonstrates, 'You have this pride of Dharma in what is actually Adharma,' through the verse starting with 'Katham.'

By saying 'How [shall I fight] Bhishma and Drona in battle...' and 'enjoy the pleasures...', Arjuna indicates in his prima facie argument (purvapaksha) that he is considering the specific nature of the act (killing Gurus) and the specific nature of the result (enjoyments), regarding them as things to be shunned.

By the phrase 'We do not know this' (referring to the next verse), he speaks of the consideration of the specific action.

(The view is that) Action performed without consideration/aim (niranusandhana) is not proper.

And no one engages in war aiming for defeat.

(Arjuna feels) 'Even victory is a calamity for us.'

He states exactly that: 'It is better to live on alms without killing the Gurus.'

And 'it is impossible to determine whether we should desire victory or defeat,' because even in victory, there is the destruction of kinsmen.

'This is not an abandonment of one's duty due to grief or delusion, but rather, I am abandoning this war because it lacks righteousness and is inherently unrighteous (adharma).' Presenting the intent of Arjuna, who does not grasp the Lord's (counter) intent, the commentary explains:

How shall I 'Pratiyotsyami' (strike against) Bhishma the Grandfather and Drona the Teacher in 'Sankhye' (battle) with 'Ishubhih' (arrows)? The meaning is: Not in any way. Because they are 'Pujarhau'—worthy of worship with flowers, etc. With those deserving worship, even a playful fight with words in a playground meant for mere victory or defeat is improper; then what to speak of striking them with life-taking arrows on a battlefield!

The two addresses 'Madhusudana' and 'Arisudana' are due to the lack of contextual awareness caused by the agitation of grief. Therefore, there is no fault of redundancy in the meaning of 'Madhusudana' and 'Arisudana.' By saying 'Pratiyotsyami' (I will fight against), it is suggested that where even mere fighting is not proper, killing is far beyond consideration.

Alternatively, 'How shall I fight the two worthy of worship?'—'Bhishma and Drona' is the explanation of who those two 'Pujarhau' are. The connection is like saying 'Feed the two Brahmins—Devadatta and Yajnadatta.'

The sentiment is this: Duryodhana and the others do not get ready for war without placing Bhishma and Drona in the front. In that situation, fighting with them is certainly not Dharma, because unlike worship, it is not enjoined (vihita). Nor can it be said that it is not Adharma because it is not forbidden. When betraying/disrespecting a Guru even by mere words like 'Hum' or 'Tu' (disrespectful address) is forbidden by showing its undesirable results, then what need be said about the unrighteousness (adharmatva) and forbidden nature of engaging in battle with them!

Hearing the uplifting words of the Lord thus, Arjuna submitted to the Lord with the six verses starting with "Katham," implying: "I have not withdrawn from battle out of cowardice, but rather out of a sense of righteousness (Dharma)."

"O Madhusudana"—Protector of devotees through the slaying of the demon Madhu and the establishment of Mathura—"In 'Sankhye' (battle), how shall I 'Pratiyotsyami' (fight against) Bhishma and Drona with 'Ishubhih' (arrows)?" Meaning, fight in opposition.

Since Bhishma is a devotee, his death is improper; and since Drona is a Guru, the same applies—this is indicated by "Dronam cha." Bhishma and Drona are worthy of worship as previously explained.

"O Arisudana" (Slayer of enemies)—by this address, it is indicated: "These two are a devotee and a Brahmin respectively, not enemies; therefore, why do You engage me in killing them?"

Hearing this, Arjuna—agitated by affection, compassion, and Dharma, and not fully understanding the Lord's words—spoke the verse starting with "Katham."

Addressing Him as "Arisudana" (Slayer of enemies), he implies: "Even in killing enemies, You have never done such a thing (as killing Gurus)."

Arjuna said Again Arjuna, being moved by love, compassion and fear, mistaking unrighteousness for righteousness, and not understanding, i.e., not knowing the beneficial words of Sri Krsna, said as follows: 'How can I slay Bhisma, Drona and others worthy or reverence? After slaying those elders, though they are intensely attached to enjoyments, how can I enjoy those very pleasures which are now being enjoyed by them? For, it will be mixed with their blood.