टीका

Commentary

Arjuna’s anguish deepens in this verse as he arrives at a stark moral conclusion: begging for food in the streets is preferable to slaying those who taught him everything. This is not a rhetorical exaggeration. In the Vedic world, a life of renunciation and begging — the life of a bhikshu — was considered honourable and free. Arjuna is willing to abandon all royal dignity rather than commit this act.

The acknowledgment of his teachers’ flaws is remarkable. Arjuna does not idealize Bhishma and Drona. He concedes they may be arthakaamaan — greedy, having sided with the Kauravas for wealth and position rather than righteousness. Bhishma fights because of his oath to the throne; Drona fights because the Kauravas feed his family. Arjuna sees all of this clearly. And yet, he insists, they remain his gurus. Their human failings do not dissolve the sacred bond.

The image of enjoyments “smeared with blood” is viscerally powerful. Arjuna imagines sitting on the throne of Hastinapura, eating at its tables, enjoying its pleasures — but everything would be tainted by the blood of his teachers. Wealth earned through parricide is no wealth at all; it is a lifelong stain.

This verse captures one of the Gita’s most human tensions: what do we owe those who have shaped us, even when they stand on the wrong side? Arjuna’s answer is unconditional loyalty. Krishna’s teaching will complicate this answer profoundly, but will never dismiss the sincerity of the question.

The road to surrender (sharanagati) is built from exactly this kind of moral bewilderment — when every available action seems wrong. Arjuna is not retreating from duty; he is genuinely lost, and in that lostness, he is about to become teachable.