तस्मान्नार्हा वयं हन्तुं धार्तराष्ट्रान्स्वबान्धवान्।
स्वजनं हि कथं हत्वा सुखिनः स्याम माधव।।1.37।।
।।1.37।।इसलिये अपने बान्धव इन धृतराष्ट्रसम्बन्धियोंको मारनेके लिये हम योग्य नहीं हैं क्योंकि हे माधव अपने कुटुम्बियोंको मारकर हम कैसे सुखी होंगे
।।1.37।।हे माधव इसलिये अपने बान्धव धृतराष्ट्र के पुत्रों को मारना हमारे लिए योग्य नहीं है क्योंकि स्वजनों को मारकर हम कैसे सुखी होंगे।
1.37।। व्याख्या तस्मान्नार्हा वयं हन्तुं धार्तराष्ट्रान् स्वबान्धवान् अभीतक (1। 28 से लेकर यहाँतक) मैंने कुटुम्बियोंको न मारनेमें जितनी युक्तियाँ दलीलें दी हैं जितने विचार प्रकट किये हैं उनके रहते हुए हम ऐसे अनर्थकारी कार्यमें कैसे प्रवृत्त हो सकते हैं अपने बान्धव इन धृतराष्ट्रसम्बन्धियोंको मारनेका कार्य हमारे लिये सर्वथा ही अयोग्य है अनुचित है। हमजैसे अच्छे पुरुष ऐसा अनुचित कार्य कर ही कैसे सकते हैं स्वजनं हि कथं हत्वा सुखिनः स्याम माधव हे माधव इन कुटुम्बियोंके मरनेकी आशंकासे ही बड़ा दुःख हो रहा है संताप हो रहा है तो फिर क्रोध तथा लोभके वशीभूत होकर हम उनको मार दें तो कितना दुःख होगा उनको मारकर हम कैसे सुखी होंगेयहाँ ये हमारे घनिष्ठ सम्बन्धी हैं इस ममताजनित मोहके कारण अपने क्षत्रियोचित कर्तव्यकी तरफ अर्जुनकी दृष्टि ही नहीं जा रही है। कारण कि जहाँ मोह होता है वहाँ मनुष्यका विवेक दब जाता है। विवेक दबनेसे मोहकी प्रबलता हो जाती है। मोहके प्रबल होनेसे अपने कर्तव्यका स्पष्ट भान नहीं होता। सम्बन्ध अब यहाँ यह शंका होती है कि जैसे तुम्हारे लिये दुर्योधन आदि स्वजन हैं ऐसे ही दुर्योधन आदिके लिये भी तो तुम स्वजन हो। स्वजनकी दृष्टिसे तुम तो युद्धसे निवृत्त होनेकी बात सोच रहे हो पर दुर्योधन आदि युद्धसे निवृत्त होनेकी बात ही नहीं सोच रहे हैं इसका क्या कारण है इसका उत्तर अर्जुन आगेके दो श्लोकोंमें देते हैं।
।।1.37।। ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि अर्जुन के तर्क शास्त्रसम्मत हैं। जाने या अनजाने शास्त्रों का विपरीत अर्थ करने वाले लोगों के कारण दर्शनशास्त्र की अत्यधिक हानि होती है। अर्जुन अपने दिये हुये तर्कों को ही सही समझकर उनसे सन्तुष्ट हुआ इस खतरनाक निर्णय पर पहुँचता है कि उसको इन आक्रमणकारियों को नहीं मारना चाहिये भगवान् फिर भी शान्त रहते हैं।श्रीकृष्ण के मौन से वह और भी अधिक विचलित होकर उनसे दयनीय भाव से प्रार्थना करते हुए अपने मूर्खतापूर्ण निर्णय की पुष्टि चाहता है। दीर्घकाल तक साथ में रहने से दोनों में स्नेहभाव बढ़ गया था और इसी कारण अर्जुन भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण को माधव नाम से सम्बोधित करके पूछता है कि स्वबान्धवों की ही हत्या करके कोई व्यक्ति कैसे सुखी रह सकता है। भगवान् फिर भी मौन रहते हैं।
1.37 Therefore, it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhrtarastra who are our own relatives. For, O Madhava, how can we be happy by killing our kinsmen?
1.37. Therefore, we should not kill the sons of Dhritarashtra, our relatives; for how can we be happy by killing our own people, O Madhava (Krishna)?
1.37. How could we be happy indeed, O Madhava, after slaying our own kinsmen ?
1.37 तस्मात् therefore? न (are) not? अर्हाः justified? वयम् we? हन्तुम् to kill? धार्तराष्ट्रान् the sons of Dhritarashtra? स्वबान्धवान् our relatives? स्वजनम् kinsmen? हि indeed? कथम् how? हत्वा having killed? सुखिनः happy? स्याम may (we) be? माधव O Madhava.No Commentary.
1.37 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.
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]:
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.
But it is said: agnido garadas caiva sastra-panir dhanapahah ksetra-darapahari ca sad ete hy atatayinah 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. Vasistha Smrti 3.19 And also it is said: atatayinam ayantarh hanyad evavicarayan natatayi-vadhe doso hantur bhavati kascana Without consideration, one should kill the aggressors, as there is no fault in killing them. Manu Smrti 8.350 Thus the scriptures prescribe killing in the case of aggressors. Arjuna answers with this verse. Killing them, we will remain, but we will be sinful. The above instructions are from artha sastra, but those instructions are weaker than those from dharma sastra. Yajnavalkya says: smrtyor virodhe nyayas tu balavan vyavaharatah artha-sastrat tu balavan dharma-sastram iti sthitih It is established that where there is conflict of rules in two smrti statements, reasoning must prevail of customs to choose the correct rule. However, in reasoning, the rules of dharma sastra are stronger than those of artha sastra. Yajnavalkya Smrti 2.21 Thus though they are aggressors they are also acaryas. In killing acaryas, we will incur sin. We cannot also be happy in this life or the next, since the act is against the rules of dharma and against the conclusion of reasoning. Thus he says “How can we be happy, having killed our own people?”
It may be argued to Arjuna that if he does not slay his enemies due to feeling compassion for them, then they out of greed for power they will surely slay him; therefore it would be better for him to slay them and enjoy sovereignty. This is answered in a verse and a half beginning with: I do not like etc. Even if they kill us I do not like to kill them even for attaining the sovereignty of all the three worlds much less for gaining only this earth. The Vedic scriptures declare that those who commit the following six types of crimes being : arson, poisoning, assaulting with weapons, stealing ones wealth, usurping ones land or kidnapping ones wife are aggressors and Duryodhana and the Kauravas were definitely aggressors having committed all six offences against the Pandavas beginning with arson. The slaying of aggressors is justifiable and the Vedic scriptures state that one should slay an aggressor coming with the intention of committing a criminal act without hesitation and that the slayer of such an aggressor incurs no sin whatsoever. This is being answered by the verse and a half beginning with: sin alone etc. The text which states one should kill belongs to what is called an Artha Sastra which is a scripture dealing with the rules and laws regarding wealth. Artha Sastra is considered less authoritative than Dharma Sastra which are scriptures dealing with righteousness. Dharma Sastra is superior to Artha Sastra. As it is stated by the sage Yagnavalkya: when two scriptures differ the one whose conclusion is the most reasonable and most logical is to be considered superior. This is the understanding. Therefore by the slaying of preceptors etc. although they are aggressors, Arjuna is stating that sin shall be incurred because such slaying is unwarranted and unrighteous. There can be no happiness from this. This is being given by: How can we adopt this course of action? Although Duryodhana and the Kauravas being deprived of all discrimination are determined to fight; why should we who are not deprived of discrimination become degraded as well by such sinfulness? We should resolve not to engage in this battle. It may be argued that the action of slaying kinsman is common to both the Pandavas and the Kauravas; so even as the Kauravas adopting such a contingency are determined to fight; it is better for Arjuna to likewise engage himself in the battle, what is the value of despondency? This is being answered by these two verses.
Madhvacarya has no commentary so we present Baladeva Vidyabhusanas. If the question arises that although it is advisable for the Pandavas to engage in battle being challenged by their enemies the Kauravas because it is well known that a ksatriya can never decline a challenge to fight or to gamble. To answer this Arjuna speaks the verse beginning: yadyapy ete na pasyanti and the verse beginning katham na jneyam asmabhih. The reason for the Kauravas to be engaged in war is out of greed. Whereas we not having this desire of greed therefore have no desire for battle. One is engaged in karmic activities to fulfil ones desires; but only if no negativity is created and the action results in total happiness can it be considered righteousness. It is also described in the codes of warfare that a Syen Yaga is prescribed for killing of ones enemies. Although it is true because the result of it will not give happiness to the family members of the deceased, it is unreasonable for us to be engaged in this battle. On the other hand the tradition of accepting a challenge by ksatriyas is applicable when there is no probability of destruction of the dynasty. Arjuna again addresses Lord Krishna again as Janardana, He who always naturally protects His devotees, Arjuna is intimating that since Lord Krishna is the Supreme Lord and has appeared for the express purpose of removing all those opposed to righteousness on the Earth, He can just by His will destroy all the enemies effortlessly Himself.
There is no commentary for this verse.
Why are they trying to kill the Pandavas in the first place might now be asked? In this verse Arjuna is stating that the Kauravas their hearts full of greed, devoid of piety see no fault and perceive no sinful reaction in the slaying of family members and hence they act in ignorance. Now in support of his reason for not fighting Arjuna states that the Pandavas are not like the Kauravas because of knowing fully the sinful reaction of slaying kinsman. So why should they engage in this abominable act. Being a devotee of the Supreme Lord Krishna who is the propounder of dharma or righteousness, Arjuna addresses him by the vocative Janardana meaning as the remover of his devotees ignorance; why should they not refrain themselves from such ignorance being cognizant of the implications of unrighteousness?
Tasmaan naarhaa vayam hantum dhaartaraashtraan swabaandhavaan; Swajanam hi katham hatwaa sukhinah syaama maadhava.
nihatya—by killing; dhārtarāṣhṭrān—the sons of Dhritarashtra; naḥ—our; kā—what; prītiḥ—pleasure; syāt—will there be; janārdana—he who looks after the public, Shree Krishna; pāpam—vices; eva—certainly; āśhrayet—must come upon; asmān—us; hatvā—by killing; etān—all these; ātatāyinaḥ—aggressors; tasmāt—hence; na—never; arhāḥ—behoove; vayam—we; hantum—to kill; dhārtarāṣhṭrān—the sons of Dhritarashtra; sva-bāndhavān—along with friends; sva-janam—kinsmen; hi—certainly; katham—how; hatvā—by killing; sukhinaḥ—happy; syāma—will we become; mādhava—Shree Krishna, the husband of Yogmaya