टीका

Commentary

This verse draws the moral conclusion from what Arjuna has been building toward. The word “tasmaat” — therefore — signals a logical inference. Having established that those he loves stand before him, having declared that no kingdom or pleasure is worth their lives, Arjuna now states flatly: it is not proper for us to kill them. The argument is not tactical. It is moral.

He addresses Krishna as Madhava — a name meaning one born of the clan of Madhu, or one who is like the spring season, sweet and life-giving. The contrast is poignant: he calls on the spring-like, life-giving Krishna while contemplating an act of mass destruction. The very name he chooses expresses the dissonance he feels.

The question “how can we be happy by killing our own people?” is deceptively simple. On the surface it is a practical question about emotional wellbeing. But beneath it lies a profound philosophical point: happiness cannot be separated from righteousness. A happiness built on the corpses of one’s teachers and family members is not happiness but its opposite — a hollow triumph that would haunt every moment of the supposed victory.

The Sanskrit word “sukhinah” — happy, at ease, flourishing — carries a richness that no English translation captures fully. “Sukha” is the opposite of “duhkha” (suffering). It implies not merely pleasure but a deep rightness and alignment between one’s inner state and one’s outer circumstances. Arjuna intuits that killing kin would shatter this alignment permanently.

This verse also marks a turning point in the structure of Arjuna’s argument. From personal grief, he has moved to ethical reasoning. He is no longer merely saying “I cannot bear it.” He is saying “it is not right.” This shift from emotion to ethics is significant, even if his ethical reasoning will be challenged and refined by Krishna throughout the Gita.