Share this page on following platforms.
Download Bhagwad Gita 1.37 Download BG 1.37 as Image

⮪ BG 1.36 Bhagwad Gita English BG 1.38⮫

Bhagavad Gita Chapter 1 Verse 37

भगवद् गीता अध्याय 1 श्लोक 37

तस्मान्नार्हा वयं हन्तुं धार्तराष्ट्रान्स्वबान्धवान्।
स्वजनं हि कथं हत्वा सुखिनः स्याम माधव।।1.37।।

English Translation - Swami Gambirananda

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?

English Translation - Swami Sivananda

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)?

English Translation - Dr. S. Sankaranarayan

1.37. How could we be happy indeed, O Madhava, after slaying our own kinsmen ?

English Commentary - Swami Sivananda

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.

English Translation of Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Shankaracharya's

1.37 Sri Sankaracharya did not comment on this sloka. The commentary starts from 2.10.

English Translation of Commentary - Dr. S. Sankaranarayan

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]:

English Translation of Ramanuja's Sanskrit Commentary

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.

Commentary - Chakravarthi Ji

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?”

Rudra Vaishnava Sampradaya - Commentary

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.

Brahma Vaishnava Sampradaya - Commentary

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.

Shri Vaishnava Sampradaya - Commentary

There is no commentary for this verse.

Kumara Vaishnava Sampradaya - Commentary

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?

Transliteration Bhagavad Gita 1.37

Tasmaan naarhaa vayam hantum dhaartaraashtraan swabaandhavaan; Swajanam hi katham hatwaa sukhinah syaama maadhava.

Word Meanings Bhagavad Gita 1.37

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