Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 5

व्याख्या -- [इस श्लोकसे ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि दूसरे-तीसरे श्लोकोंमें भगवान्के कहे हुए वचन अब अर्जुनके भीतर असर कर रहे हैं। इससे अर्जुनके मनमें यह विचार आ रहा है कि भीष्म, द्रोण आदि गुरुजनोंको मारना धर्मयुक्त नहीं है--ऐसा जानते हुए भी भगवान् मुझे बिना किसी सन्देहके युद्धके लिये आज्ञा दे रहे हैं, तो कहीं-न-कहीं मेरी समझमें ही गलती है! इसलिये अर्जुन अब पूर्वश्लोककी तरह उत्तेजित होकर नहीं बोलते, प्रत्युत कुछ ढिलाईसे बोलते हैं।]
'गुरुनहत्वा ৷৷. भैक्ष्यमपीह लोके'-- अब अर्जुन पहले अपने पक्षको सामने रखते हुए कहते हैं कि अगर मैं भीष्म, द्रोण आदि पूज्यजनोंके साथ युद्ध नहीं करूँगा, तो दुर्योधन भी अकेला मेरे साथ युद्ध नहीं करेगा। इस तरह युद्ध न होनेसे मेरेको राज्य नहीं मिलेगा, जिससे मेरेको दुःख पाना पड़ेगा। मेरा जीवननिर्वाह भी कठिनतासे होगा। यहाँतक कि क्षत्रियके लिये निषिद्ध जो भिक्षावृत्ति है, उसको ही जीवन-निर्वाहके लिये ग्रहण करना पड़ सकता है। परन्तु गुरुजनोंको मारनेकी अपेक्षा मैं उस कष्टदायक भिक्षा-वृत्तिको भी ग्रहण करना श्रेष्ठ मानता हूँ।
'इह लोके' कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि यद्यपि भिक्षा माँगकर खानेसे इस संसारमें मेरा अपमान-तिरस्कार होगा, लोग मेरी निन्दा करेंगे, तथापि गुरुजनोंको मारनेकी अपेक्षा भिक्षा माँगना श्रेष्ठ है।
'अपि' कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि मेरे लिये गुरुजनोंको मारना भी निषिद्ध है; और भिक्षा माँगना भी निषिद्ध है परन्तु इन दोनोंमें भी गुरुजनोंको मारना मुझे अधिक निषिद्ध दीखता है।
'हत्वार्थकामांस्तु ৷৷. रुधिरप्रदिग्धान्'-- अब अर्जुन भगवान्के वचनोंकी तरफ दृष्टि करते हुए कहते हैं कि अगर मैं आपकी आज्ञाके अनुसार युद्ध करूँ, तो युद्धमें गुरुजनोंकी हत्याके परिणाममें मैं उनके खूनसे सने हुए और जिनमें धन आदिकी कामना ही मुख्य है, ऐसे भोगोंको ही तो भोगूँगा। मेरेको भोग ही तो मिलेंगे। उन भोगोंके मिलनेसे मुक्ति थोड़े ही होगी! शान्ति थोड़े ही मिलेगी!
यहाँ यह प्रश्न हो सकता है कि भीष्म, द्रोण आदि गुरुजन धनके द्वारा ही कौरवोंसे बँधे थे; अतः यहाँ अर्थकामान्' पदको 'गुरुन्' पदका विशेषण मान लिया जाय तो क्या आपत्ति है? इसका उत्तर यह है कि 'अर्थकी कामनावाले गुरुजन'--ऐसा अर्थ करना उचित नहीं है। कारण कि पितामह भीष्म, आचार्य द्रोण आदि गुरुजन धनकी कामनावाले नहीं थे। वे तो दुर्योधनके वृत्तिभोगी थे उन्होंने दुर्योधनका अन्न खाया था। अतः युद्धके समय दुर्योधनका साथ छो़ड़ना कर्तव्य न समझकर ही वे कौरवोंके पक्षमें खड़े हुए थे।
दूसरी बात अर्जुनने भीष्म द्रोण आदिके लिये 'महानुभावान' पदका प्रयोग किया है। अतः ऐसे श्रेष्ठ भाववालोंको अर्थकी कामनावाले कैसे कहा जा सकता है तात्पर्य है कि जो महानुभाव हैं, वे अर्थकी कामनावाले नहीं हो सकते; और जो अर्थकी कामनावाले हैं वे महानुभाव नहीं हो सकते। अतः यहाँ 'अर्थकामान्' पद 'भोगान्' पदका ही विशेषण हो सकता है।
विशेष बात
भगवान्ने दूसरे-तीसरे श्लोकोंमें अर्जुनके कल्याणकी दृष्टिसे ही उन्हें कायरताको छोड़कर युद्धके लिये खड़ा होनेकी आज्ञा दी थी। परन्तु अर्जुन उलटा ही समझे अर्थात् वे समझे कि भगवान् राज्यका भोग करनेकी दृष्टिसे ही युद्धकी आज्ञा देते हैं। (टिप्पणी प0 42) पहले तो अर्जुनका युद्ध न करनेका एक ही पक्ष था, जिससे वे धनुषबाण छोड़कर और शोकाविष्ट होकर रथके मध्यभागमें बैठ गये थे (1। 47)। परंतु युद्ध करनेका पक्ष तो भगवान्के कहनेसे ही हुआ है। तात्पर्य है कि अर्जुनका भाव था कि हमलोग तो धर्मको जानते हैं, पर दुर्योधन आदि धर्मको नहीं जानते, इसलिये वे धन, राज्य आदिके लोभसे युद्ध करनेके लिये तैयार खड़े हैं। अब वही बात अर्जुन यहाँ अपने लिये कहते हैं कि अगर मैं भी आपकी आज्ञाके अनुसार युद्ध करूँ, तो परिणाममें गुरुजनोंके रक्तसे सने हुए धन, राज्य आदिको ही तो प्राप्त करूँगा! इस तरह अर्जुनको युद्ध करनेमें बुराई-ही-बुराई दिखायी दे रही है।
जो बुराई बुराईके रूपमें आती है, उसको मिटाना बड़ा सुगम होता है। परन्तु जो बुराई अच्छाईके रूपमें आती है, उसको मिटाना बड़ा कठिन होता है; जैसे--सीताजीके सामने रावण और हनुमान्जीके सामने कालनेमि राक्षस आये तो उनको सीताजी और हनुमान्जी पहचान नहीं सके; क्योंकि उन दोनोंका वेश साधुओंका था। अर्जुनकी मान्यतामें युद्धरूप कर्तव्य-कर्म करना बुराई है और युद्ध न करना भलाई है अर्थात् अर्जुनके मनमें धर्म (हिंसा-त्याग-) रूप भलाईके वेशमें कर्तव्य-त्यागरूप बुराई आयी है। उनको कर्तव्यत्यागरूप बुराई बुराईके रूपमें नहीं दीख रही है; क्योंकि उनके भीतर शरीरोंको लेकर मोह है। अतः इस बुराईको मिटानेमें भगवान्को भी बड़ा जोर पड़ रहा है और समय लग रहा है।
आजकल समाजमें एकताके बहाने वर्ण-आश्रमकी मर्यादाको मिटानेकी कोशिश की जा रही है, तो यह बुराई एकतारूप अच्छाईके वेशमें आनेसे बुराईरूपसे नहीं दीख रही है। अतः वर्ण-आश्रमकी मर्यादा मिटनेसे परिणाममें लोगोंका कितना पतन होगा, लोगोंमें कितना आसुरभाव आयेगा--इस तरफ दृष्टि ही नहीं जाती। ऐसे ही धनके बहाने लोग झूठ, कपट, बेईमानी, ठगी, विश्वासघात आदि-आदि दोषोंको भी दोषरूपसे नहीं जानते। यहाँ अर्जुनमें धर्मके रूपमें बुराई आयी है कि हम भीष्म, द्रोण आदि महानुभावोंको कैसे मार सकते हैं? क्योंकि हम धर्मको जाननेवाले हैं। तात्पर्य है कि अर्जुनने जिसको अच्छाई माना है, वह वास्तवमें बुराई ही है; परन्तु उसमें मान्यता अच्छाईकी होनेसे वह बुराईरूपसे नहीं दीख रही है।

सम्बन्ध-- भगवान्के वचनोंमें ऐसी विलक्षणता है कि वे अर्जुनके भीतर अपना प्रभाव डालते जा रहे हैं जिससे अर्जुनको अपने युद्ध न करनेके निर्णयमें अधिक सन्देह होता जा रहा है। ऐसी अवस्थाको प्राप्त हुए अर्जुन कहते हैं--

Assuming that even in war, which is the Dharma of kings, the killing of Gurus and others results merely in 'vritti' (livelihood/worldly gain), and attributing sin to it, he speaks the verse "Gurun" etc.

Not killing/harming (ahimsitva) the Gurus—Bhishma, Drona, and others, as well as the brothers present here—who are "Mahanubhavan," meaning noble souls of great majesty endowed with Vedic learning and study; it is "Shreyah"—more praiseworthy and proper—to eat/enjoy "Bhaiksham" (a collection of alms/living on alms), even though for kings and the like, this is forbidden "Iha loke" (in this world), the field of worldly transaction.

For royal enjoyment is not desired through violence against Gurus.

Moreover, having killed Gurus and others, I would enjoy only "Arthakaman" (wealth and desires); I would not experience Moksha. And that enjoyment would be "Ihaiva" (here in this world itself), not in heaven.

He qualifies "Arthakaman" with "Bhogan" (enjoyments).

"Bhogas" are things that are enjoyed; them. They would be "Rudhirapradigdhan"—stained with blood, like things smeared with blood, meaning extremely condemned. Therefore, abandoning enjoyments achievable by killing Gurus and others, living on alms is indeed proper—this is the meaning.

Anticipating the doubt—"If so, then due to the non-attainment of the kingdom and the absence of enjoyment, begging would have to be resorted to"—he refutes it by accepting it as a desirable outcome (Ishtapatti) with the verse "Gurun."

Not killing the Gurus—Bhishma, Drona and others, who are "Mahanubhavan" (great souls)—"Iha" (in this world), eating "Bhaiksham" (alms), though forbidden for a Kshatriya, is "Shreyah" (better/praiseworthy). Because living on alms for the purpose of avoiding violence to Gurus does not generate sin. Having stated the merit of the absence of hell and infamy by not killing Gurus (in the first half), he states the fault in killing with "Hatva" (Having killed).

The term "Mahanubhavan" connects here as well. Having killed the "Mahanubhava" Gurus, I would enjoy "Bhogaan Arthakamaan" (enjoyments consisting of wealth and desire) "Ihaiva" (here itself), not in the other world. And even here, they would be "Rudhirapradigdhan" (blood-stained). Meaning, they would be extremely disgusting because they are pervaded by infamy. "Arthakaman" is an adjective for the Gurus (meaning those desiring wealth). The implication is: "Since they are overwhelmed by the thirst for wealth, they will not desist from war; therefore, their killing becomes inevitable." As said by Bhishma: "Man is the slave of wealth, but wealth is slave to no one..."—This is the view of some others.

However, some raise a doubt based on the Smriti: "A Guru who is arrogant, ignorant of right and wrong action, and set on a wrong path should be abandoned." They argue that killing them—who are arrogant with war-pride, void of discrimination due to unjust seizure of the kingdom and betrayal of the disciple, and set on a wrong path—is indeed better. He answers this with "Gurun."

They are "Mahan"—those whose power is based on great Vedic learning and study. Thus, those by whom even Time and Desire are controlled, those of excessive merit, are not touched by petty sins like arrogance. Alternatively, "Himahanubhavan" is a single word. "Himaha" (Destroyer of cold/dullness) is the Sun or Fire; those whose power (anubhava) is like theirs. Thus, due to their excessive brilliance, faults like arrogance do not exist in them. As stated: "Transgression of Dharma and daring acts are seen in powerful lords, but for the glorious ones like the all-consuming Fire, it is not a fault."

Furthermore, regarding the objection: "They are greedy for wealth and engaged in war, so where is their aforementioned greatness in these sold souls?"—citing Bhishma's quote "Man is the slave of wealth"—the second half of the verse "Hatva..." is interpreted by those (objectors) in this light. However, since faults like arrogance rooted in this (greed) are resolved by those very commentators describing the Gurus' well-known greatness and brilliance, whether raising such a doubt again is valid is for the wise to consider.

Doubting that "Killing even Gurus who are prepared for war might be better," he says "Gurun."

Although what You said is indeed praiseworthy, still, not killing the great-souled Gurus, eating alms is "Shreyah," meaning "Prashastataram" (more praiseworthy/better).

"If so, then leave the Gurus and kill only the wicked Duryodhana and others"—anticipating this, he says "Arthakaman" (desirous of wealth).

The wealth-seeking Gurus will necessarily help Duryodhana; therefore, their killing is also inevitable—this is the meaning.

The word "Tu" is used to present the alternative view. "Ihaiva"—here only, not in the other world. "Bhunjiya" (I would enjoy)—here the potential mood (Ling) is in the sense of a question/inquiry (samprashna).

In the inquiry "Is it better to eat alms without killing Gurus, or is it better to acquire enjoyment by killing them?", he himself states the defect in the latter view with "Rudhirapradigdhan" (blood-stained).

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 enjoyments being enjoyed by them, sprinkling/seasoning them with their blood, and sitting on those seats?"

Then your bodily sustenance will not happen either"—if this is the objection, he answers with "Gurun."

Not killing the Gurus—Drona and others—meaning, not committing the act of killing Gurus which is opposed to the afterlife, it is "Shreyah" (better/proper) to eat even "Bhikshannam" (food obtained by begging) "Iha loke" (in this world).

In the opposite case, I would experience not only sorrow in the next world but hellish sorrow right here—he says "Hatva" (Having killed).

Having killed the Gurus, I would enjoy "Bhogaan" (enjoyments) consisting of wealth (artha) and desire (kama) which are "Rudhirena Pradigdhan" (excessively smeared with blood) right here.

Alternatively, "Arthakaman" is an adjective for the Gurus. Because they are overwhelmed by the thirst for wealth, they will not desist from war. Therefore, their killing becomes inevitable—this is the meaning.

As stated by Bhishma to Yudhishthira: "Man is the slave of wealth, but wealth is the slave of no one; this is the truth, O King, I am bound by wealth by the Kauravas.

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.

अत्यन्त उच्च प्रतीत होने वाले परन्तु वास्तव में अर्थशून्य तर्क अर्जुन पुन प्रस्तुत करता है क्योंकि स्वयं को न समझने के कारण वह अपनी समस्या को भी नहीं समझ पाया है।यहाँ उसने अपने गुरुओं अर्थात् भीष्म और द्रोण को महानुभाव कहा है जिसका अर्थ है अपने युग के आदर्श पुरुष। अपनी संस्कृति में जो कुछ उच्च और श्रेष्ठ है उसके वे प्रतीक स्वरूप हैं जिन्होंने विशाल और उदार अन्तकरण से सनातन धर्म के लिये अनेक प्रकार के त्याग किये। अपनी संस्कृति के ऐसे श्रेष्ठ आदर्श युगपुरुषों का नाश केवल व्यक्तिगत शक्ति एवं पदलिप्सा के लिये करना किसी प्रकार उचित नहीं प्रतीत होता है। केवल वह युग विशेष ही नहीं बल्कि इन महापुरुषों के अमूल्य जीवनोच्छेद होने से भावी पीढ़ियाँ भी दरिद्र हो जायेंगी।अर्जुन कहता है कि संस्कृति के उपवन के सुन्दरतम् सुमनों को विनष्ट करने का विचार त्याग कर पाण्डवों के लिये भिक्षान्न पर जीवन यापन करना अधिक उचित होगा। इन गुरुजनों को मारकर प्राप्त किये गये राज्य का उपभोग भी वह नहीं कर सकेगा क्योंकि वे सब उनकी कटु स्मृतियों और मूल्यवान रक्त से सने होंगे जिनको विस्मृत कर पाना कठिन होगा।एक बार यदि हम परिस्थिति का त्रुटिपूर्ण आकलन कर लेते हैं तो भावनाओं के कारण हमारी बुद्धि पर आवरण पड़ जाता है और तब हम भी जीवन में अर्जुन के समान व्यवहार करने लगते हैं। इसका स्पष्ट संकेत व्यास जी द्वारा इस घटना में किये गये विस्तृत वर्णन में देखने को मिलता है।

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.

Objection: Bhishma and Drona are worthy of worship because they are Gurus, and so are Kripa and others. But accepting them as Gurus is not proper at this time, according to the Smriti: "A Guru who is arrogant, ignorant of right and wrong action, and set on a wrong path is ordained to be abandoned."

Therefore, killing these—who are arrogant with war-pride, void of discrimination due to unjust seizure of the kingdom and betrayal of the disciple, and set on a wrong path—is indeed better. Answer: Anticipating this doubt, he says "Gurun." Not killing the Gurus, the afterlife is certainly secured; but "Asmin Loke" (in this world), for us kings and the like who have been deprived of our kingdom by them, it is "Shreyah"—more praiseworthy and proper—to eat even "Bhaiksham" (alms), which is otherwise forbidden; but obtaining the kingdom by killing them is not "Shreyah." Is he speaking by assuming that even in a war that is Dharma, the result is merely livelihood, and by attributing sin to it, rather than asserting the absence of their Guruhood due to arrogance? To this doubt, he says "Mahanubhavan."

"Mahanubhavan": Those whose great power is based on Vedic learning, study, austerity, conduct, etc. Thus, those by whom even Time and Desire are controlled, those of excessive merit, are not touched by the contact of petty sins like arrogance—this is the meaning. Alternatively, "Himahanubhavan" is a single word. "Himaha" (Destroyer of cold/dullness) is the Sun or Fire; those whose power (anubhava) is like theirs. Thus, due to their excessive brilliance, faults like arrogance do not exist in them. As stated: "Transgression of Dharma and daring acts are seen in powerful lords, but for the glorious ones like the all-consuming Fire, it is not a fault."

Objection: If they are greedy for wealth and engaged in war, then where is the aforementioned greatness in these sold souls? As stated by Bhishma to Yudhishthira: "Man is the slave of wealth, but wealth is the slave of no one; this is the truth, O King, I am bound by wealth by the Kauravas." Answer: To this, he says "Hatva" (Having killed).

Even if greedy for wealth, they are indeed Gurus in relation to me; this is stated by using the word "Guru" again. The word "Tu" is in the sense of "Api" (even/also). Having killed even such Gurus, I would only enjoy pleasures, not attain Moksha. "Bhujyante" (that which are enjoyed) are "Bhogas" i.e., objects of sense (Suffix 'Ghan' in the sense of object). And those enjoyments would be "Ihaiva"—right here, not in the other world. And even here, they would be like "Rudhirapradigdha" (smeared with blood), meaning extremely disgusting due to being pervaded by infamy. When it is so even here, then what to speak of the sorrow in the afterlife—this is the sentiment. Alternatively, "Having killed the Gurus, I would enjoy only pleasures consisting of Wealth and Desire (Arthakama), but not Dharma and Moksha"—one should see this other interpretation where "Arthakama" acts as an adjective to enjoyment.

Eating alms is better than killing Gurus; enjoyment of kingdom by killing them is not—he says "Gurun" etc.

Not killing the Gurus—Bhishma, Drona, etc.—it is "Shreyah" (good/better) to eat even "Bhiksham" (alms-food) "Iha loke" (in this world).

Because they are "Mahanubhavan"—meaning, they are the ones who cause the experience (anubhavaka) of the Great Lord (Mahato).

By such enjoyment (of alms/renunciation) in this world, happiness in the other world will result—this is indicated by the phrase "Iha loke."

But by killing them, there will be sorrow in the other world, and not only that, but suffering equal to hell etc. will occur in this world itself—he says "Hatva."

Having killed the "Arthakaman"—the Gurus who are embodiments of wealth/desire—I would enjoy pleasures "Ihaiva" (right here) which are "Rudhirapradigdhan" (smeared with blood).

Therefore, killing Gurus and others is contrary to the World (Loka) and the Vedas—he states this with "Gurun" etc.

Not killing the "Mahanubhavan" Gurus, it is best in the world to eat "Bhaikshyam"—food obtained by begging—like a Sannyasi.

"Shall I enjoy those blood-stained pleasures?"—here there is "Kaku" (intonation implying negation). The sentiment is that this is not proper.

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.