Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 6

व्याख्या-- 'न चैतद्विह्मः कतरन्नो गरीयः'-- मैं युद्ध करूँ अथवा न करूँ--इन दोनों बातोंका निर्णय मैं नहीं कर पा रहा हूँ। कारण कि आपकी दृष्टिमें तो युद्ध करना ही श्रेष्ठ है, पर मेरी दृष्टिमें गुरुजनोंको मारना पाप होनेके कारण युद्ध न करना ही श्रेष्ठ है। इन दोनों पक्षोंको सामने रखनेपर मेरे लिये कौन-सा पक्ष अत्यन्त श्रेष्ठ है--यह मैं नहीं जान पा रहा हूँ। इस प्रकार उपर्युक्त पदोंमें अर्जुनके भीतर भगवान्का पक्ष और अपना पक्ष दोनों समकक्ष हो गये हैं।
'यद्वा जयेम यदि वा नो जयेयुः'-- अगर आपकी आज्ञाके अनुसार युद्ध भी किया जाय, तो हम उनको जीतेंगे अथवा वे (दुर्योधनादि) हमारेको जीतेंगे--इसका भी हमें पता नहीं है।
यहाँ अर्जुनको अपने बलपर अविश्वास नहीं है, प्रत्युत भविष्यपर अविश्वास है; क्योंकि भविष्यमें क्या होनहार है--इसका किसीको क्या पता?
'यानेव हत्वा न जिजीविषामः'-- हम तो कुटुम्बियोंको मारकर जीनेकी भी इच्छा नहीं रखते; भोग भोगनेकी, राज्य प्राप्त करके हुक्म चलानेकी बात तो बहुत दूर रही !कारण कि अगर हमारे कुटुम्बी मारे जायँगे, तो हम जीकर क्या करेंगे अपने हाथोंसे कुटुम्बको नष्ट करके बैठेबैठे चिन्ता-शोक ही तो करेंगे! चिन्ता-शोक करने और वियोगका दुःख भोगनेके लिये हम जीना नहीं चाहते।
'तेऽवस्थिताः प्रमुखे धार्तराष्ट्राः'-- हम जिनको मारकर जीना भी नहीं चाहते, वे ही धृतराष्ट्रके सम्बन्धी हमारे सामने खड़े हैं। धृतराष्ट्रके सभी सम्बन्धी हमारे कुटुम्बी ही तो हैं। उन कुटुम्बियोंको मारकर हमारे जीनेको धिक्कार है!
सम्बन्ध -- अपने कर्तव्यका निर्णय करनेमें अपनेको असमर्थ पाकर अब अर्जुन व्याकुलतापूर्वक भगवान्से प्रार्थना करते हैं।

Anticipating the objection that "War alone is beneficial because it is the specific duty (Svadharma) of Kshatriyas," he says "Na chaitat" (Nor do we know this).

We do not know which of the two—begging or fighting—is "gariyah," i.e., superior for us: whether begging, because it is devoid of violence, or war, because it is our livelihood/duty.

Furthermore, the state of victory is doubtful: Is there equality between both sides? Or "Yad va vayam jayema" (whether we shall conquer/excel), or "Nah" (us) the sons of Dhritarashtra (Duryodhana and others) shall conquer?

Even if victory is achieved, it is not fruitful. For "Yan" (those whom)—the kinsmen—having killed whom we "na jijivishamah" (do not wish to live), those very sons of Dhritarashtra are standing "pramukhe" (facing us/in the front).

Therefore, the superiority of war over begging is not established—this is the meaning.

If one asks, "If it is decided that non-killing is indeed beneficial, then for what reason do you grieve?", he answers with "Na" (No).

We do not know ("na vidmah") which is "gariyah" (superior) for us—whether begging, because it is devoid of violence, or war, because it is one's own duty. We do not know that this specific one is better.

Objection: "If both sides are of equal strength, why do you not simply accept war?" Anticipating this, he implies "By my own intelligence, I see a fault in it," and says "Yad va" (Or whether).

Or whether we shall conquer, or they shall conquer us—we do not know. And even if there is victory, there is a fault—he states this with "Yan" etc.

"Yan eva"—those very persons whom—having killed, we do not wish to live, those Dhartarashtras (relations of Dhritarashtra) are standing "pramukhe" (facing us).

"In that case, begging alone is beneficial for you"—anticipating this, he says "Na chaitat."

Although for a non-Kshatriya begging alone is desired, still, "Nah"—for us Kshatriyas—we do not know which (between begging and enjoyment) is "gariyah" (superior).

Objection: "But it is stated that war alone is superior?" To this, he says "Yad va." Or whether we shall conquer the enemies, or the enemies shall conquer "Nah" (us)—even this we do not know. In the latter alternative (defeat), death is certain (which is unasked for), or else begging alone will result—this is the sentiment.

Objection: "But with Me (Krishna) as an ally, your victory is certain." To this he says "Yan eva" (Those whom...). Meaning: Due to the destruction of our beloved ones, even victory is verily a form of defeat.

Some interpret this as: "Since the superiority of begging is already certain (in Arjuna's mind), a doubt regarding 'which is better between war and begging' is not appropriate; therefore, it should be interpreted as 'Which army amongst us is gariyah (heavier/stronger)?'" This view is incorrect (asat). Why? Because the subsequent statement "Dharma-sammudha-chetah" (my mind is bewildered about Dharma - 2.7) makes the aforementioned doubt (moral dilemma) the appropriate one. Furthermore, the doubt regarding victory is already established through the doubt regarding the strength of the army, making the mention of the other doubt redundant. Also, it involves the fault of supplying extra words (adhyahara) like "army" which are not in the text.

"If you, having started the war, now desist from the action, the sons of Dhritarashtra might violently kill you"—if this is the objection, Arjuna implies: "Let it be so; compared to a victory obtained by such killing, which is unrighteous, it appears to me that being killed by them—who do not know Dharma and Adharma—is indeed 'gariyah' (better/heavier)." Having said this,

and asking "Tell me decisively what is 'Shreyas' (good) for me, your disciple who has surrendered to You," he approached the lotus feet of the Lord with extreme humility/helplessness.

Moreover, even if we were to accept the Adharma (of war), still, whether victory or defeat will be ours is not known—he states this with "Na cha" etc.

"Etat"—Between these two outcomes, we do not know which one will be "gariyah," i.e., greater/more significant for us. He shows those very two possibilities: Either "Yad va" (we shall conquer them), or "Yadi va" (they shall conquer us).

And even if victory were ours, effectively (in result) it is defeat alone—he states this with "Yan" etc. "Yan eva"—those very persons having killed whom we do not wish to live, they are standing here facing us.

'न चैतत् विद्मः' (हम यह नहीं जानते)—यहाँ 'च' (और) शब्द द्वारा द्योतित शंका को पहले रखकर तात्पर्य का अर्थ कहते हैं 'एवम्' (इस प्रकार) से।

"बंधुओं के विनाश से भयभीत आपके द्वारा (युद्ध त्यागने पर) धर्मसुत (युधिष्ठिर), भीम, नकुल आदि अत्यंत निकट संबंधियों का विनाश ही कराया जाएगा"—यह (टीका में) 'भवतः' (आपके) शब्द से सूचित किया गया है।

'विद्मः' (हम जानते हैं)—इस बहुवचन के अनुसरण में (टीकाकार) कहते हैं 'अस्माकम्' (हमारा)। 'अस्माकम्' पद से, मारे जाने योग्य बताए गए भीष्म-द्रोण आदि की अपेक्षा (पांडव पक्ष के) सभी लोगों का शिष्यत्व आदि अभिप्रेत है। पूर्वार्ध और उत्तरार्ध से विमर्श (संदेह) के अपने-अपने अभिमत पक्ष व्यंजित किए गए हैं।

'यद्वा' और 'यदि वा' समान अर्थ वाले हैं। 'जिनके वध से हमारा जीवन अनिष्ट (अवांछित) है, वे ही हमें मारने के इच्छुक होकर, अपने वध के अनुरूप (स्थिति में) खड़े हैं'—यह 'यानेव' इत्यादि के अन्वय का अर्थ है।

'न जिजीविषामः' (हम जीना नहीं चाहते)—इससे सूचित अनिर्णय (निर्णय न कर पाना) में समाप्त होने वाली, और इसीलिए (अगले श्लोक में) प्रश्न का हेतु बनने वाली 'प्रतिभा' (बुद्धि/विचार) को कहते हैं—'इति मे प्रतिभाति' (ऐसा मुझे प्रतीत होता है)।

'यच्छ्रेयः' (जो कल्याणकारी हो)—इत्यादि के अन्वय से फलित अर्थ को, और उपदेश की योग्यता के लिए शिष्य की उक्त गुण-संपत्ति को स्पष्ट करते हैं—'यन्मह्यम्' (जो मेरे लिए...) इत्यादि से। 'इति' करण (शब्द) निश्चित किए जाने वाले आकार (विषय) का निष्कर्ष निकालने के लिए है। जो शासन (आज्ञा) के योग्य होता है वही शिष्य है; अतः 'शिष्यस्तेऽहं शाधि माम्' (मैं आपका शिष्य हूँ, मुझे शासन/उपदेश करें)—ऐसा कहते हैं। यहाँ स्वभाव 'धैर्य' है; कर्तव्य-विशेष का अज्ञान होने के कारण, अथवा शोक को दूर करने के उपाय से रहित होने आदि के कारण 'अतिमात्र कार्पण्य' (अत्यधिक दीनता) है। कुछ लोग कहते हैं कि त्याज्य (त्यागने योग्य) वस्तु का परित्याग न करना यहाँ 'कार्पण्य' है; अन्य लोग कहते हैं कि दया उत्पन्न करने वाली दीन-वृत्ति में लगे रहना ही कार्पण्य है।

'भगवत्पादाम्बुजमुपससार' (भगवान के चरण-कमलों के पास गए)—यह शिष्यत्व और प्रपन्नत्व (शरणागति) के योग (जुड़ने) का ही फल है.

इसके पूर्व के दो श्लोक निसन्देह अर्जुन के मन की व्याकुलता और भ्रमित स्थिति का संकेत करते हैं। इस श्लोक में बताया जा रहा है कि अर्जुन के मन के संभ्रम का प्रभाव उसकी विवेक बुद्धि पर भी पड़ा है। शत्रुओं की सेना को देखकर उसके मन में एक समस्या उत्पन्न हुई जिसके समाधान के लिये उसे बौद्धिक विवेक शक्ति के मार्गदर्शन की आवश्यकता थी परन्तु अहंकार और युद्ध के परिणाम के सम्बन्ध में अत्यधिक चिन्तातुर होने के कारण उसका मन बुद्धि से वियुक्त हो चुका था। इस कारण ही अर्जुन के मन और बुद्धि के बीच एक गहरी खाई उत्पन्न हो गयी थी।किसी कार्यालय के कुशल लिपिक की भांति हमारा मन ज्ञानेन्द्रियों के द्वारा भिन्नभिन्न विषयों को ग्रहण कर उनको एक व्यवस्थित रूप में बुद्धि के समक्ष निर्णय के लिये प्रस्तुत करता है। बुद्धि अपने पूर्व अनुभवों के आधार पर निर्णय देती है जिसे मन कमेन्द्रियों के द्वारा बाह्य जगत में व्यक्त करता है। हमारी जाग्रत अवस्था के प्रत्येक क्षण यह समस्त कार्यकलाप होता रहता है।जहाँ पर इन उपाधियों का कार्य सुचारु रूप से एक संगठित दल अथवा व्यक्तियों की भाँति नहीं होता वहाँ वह व्यक्ति अन्दर से अस्तव्यस्त हो जाता है और जीवन में आने वाली परिस्थितियों का सफलतापूर्वक सामना करने में सक्षम नहीं हो पाता। जब ज्ञान के द्वारा पुन मन और बुद्धि में संयोजन आ जाता है तब वही व्यक्ति कुशलतापूर्वक अपना कार्य करने में समर्थ हो जाता है।अर्जुन की निर्णयात्मिका शक्ति पर बाह्य परिस्थितियों का प्रभाव नहीं था बल्कि अपनी मानसिक विह्वलता के कारण वह अपने आप को कोई निर्णय देने में असमर्थ पा रहा था। वह यह नहीं निश्चय कर पा रहा था कि युद्ध में उसे विजयी होना चाहिये अथवा कौरवों को जिताना चाहिये। व्यास जी यहाँ दर्शाते हैं कि इस मोह का प्रभाव न केवल अर्जुन के मन पर बल्कि उसकी बुद्धि पर भी पड़ा था।

Pointing out that while the Lord is rebuking him with words like "impotence" (klaibya), [Arjuna] is actually displaying "pride of Dharma in what is Adharma," the commentator explains the verse starting with "Katham."

By saying "How [shall I fight] Bhishma and Drona in battle..." and "I would enjoy pleasures," he indicates in the prima facie view (purvapaksha) that the consideration of the specific act (killing) and the consideration of the specific result (enjoyment) are to be shunned (heya).

By the statement "We do not know this" (Na chaitad vidmah), he speaks of the consideration of the specific action.

For action performed without consideration/aim (niranusandhana) is not possible. Nor does anyone engage in war aiming for defeat. [However,] even victory is a calamity for us.

That is why he says, "It is better to eat alms without killing the Gurus." And this is impossible to determine—whether we should desire victory or defeat—because even in victory, there is the destruction of kinsmen.

Anticipating the objection that "Since eating alms is forbidden for a Kshatriya and war is enjoined, war alone is beneficial for you as it is your Svadharma," he says: "We do not know this either—which of the two, begging or war, is 'gariyah' (superior) for us; whether begging (because it is devoid of violence) or war (because it is Svadharma); we do not know this."

Even though the war has begun, [we do not know] "Yad va" (whether) we shall conquer (excel), or the sons of Dhritarashtra shall conquer "Nah" (us). The alternative of equality between both sides should also be understood by implication. Moreover, even if victory is born, it is effectively defeat for us; because those very kinsmen, having killed whom we do not even wish to live—what to speak of enjoying sense-objects—those very relations of Dhritarashtra, Bhishma, Drona, and all others, are standing facing us. Therefore, the superiority of war over begging is not established—this is the meaning.

Thus, by the preceding text (Chapter 1), through the description of the defects of Samsara, the qualifications of the eligible aspirant (Adhikari) have been stated. There, in "I do not see any good (shreyas) in killing kinsmen in battle" (1.31), by suggesting that one killed in battle shares the same welfare as a wandering mendicant (parivrajaka), the "Shreyas" (Good) known as Moksha—established in Shrutis like "The Good is one thing, the Pleasant is another"—is introduced. And by implication, everything else is "Ashreya" (not good)—thus the discrimination between the Eternal and non-eternal objects is shown. In "I do not desire victory, O Krishna" (1.32), dispassion for worldly fruits is shown; in "Even for the sake of the sovereignty of the three worlds" (1.35), dispassion for other-worldly fruits; in "Residence in hell is certain" (1.44), the existence of the Self distinct from the gross body; in "What use is kingdom to us" (1.32), "Shama" (control of mind) is interpreted; in "What use are pleasures," "Dama" (control of senses); in "Even if these do not see" (1.38), greedlessness; and in "That would be better for me" (1.46), "Titiksha" (forbearance). This is the meaning of the first chapter, which indicates the means for Renunciation (Sannyasa). In this chapter, however, with "It is better to eat alms," Sannyasa characterized by the practice of begging is propounded.

Moreover, even by accepting the Adharma (of war), one should act only if [we knew] "Victory will be ours alone"—if we had certain knowledge of that. He says "Na chaitat."

We do not know this either—which between the two is "gariyah" (better/greater) for us: "Yad" (that) we should conquer them, or "Yadi va" (if) these should conquer "Nah" (us).

By our reckoning, even their victory appears "gariyah" (heavier/preferable) than our victory—he states this with "Yan eva."

"Yan"—those whom having killed, we "na jijivishamah" (do not wish to live), not just that we desire to live; those very sons of Dhritarashtra—cousins (uncles' sons), brothers—are standing "Pramukhe" (in the front) for war.

Therefore, having killed them, what shall we do?—this is the meaning.

The question starting with "Na chaitat" spans three parts.

The meaning is clear.

If you say, 'After beginning the war, if we withdraw from the battle, the sons of Dhrtarastra will slay us all forcibly', be it so. I think that even to be killed by them, who do not know the difference between righteousness and unrighteousness, is better for us than gaining unrighteous victory by killing them. After saying so, Arjuna surrendered himself at the feet of the Lord, overcome with dejection, saying. 'Teach me, your disciple, who has taken refuge in you, what is good for me.'