Arjuna will not strike back at the Kauravas even if they slay him, and not for any prize, the three worlds or the earth.
He is not pleading for his own safety; he grants that the other side may strike him down and still will not strike back. The verse answers the objection that killing these particular enemies would be both lawful and pleasurable, and finds in it neither justice nor joy.
These I do not wish to kill, Madhusudana, slayer of the demon Madhu, even if they kill me, not for the sovereignty of the three worlds, let alone for the earth.
Arjuna has been laying out the ruin he sees ahead; here he refuses the action outright, naming the largest reward only to show that even it could not move him.
Where they agreethe convergence
Across schools and centuries the commentators come to the same ground. These are the points they share, and the voices that hold each one.
You will not strike them down even as they raise their weapons against you; the very wish to kill is gone from you, let alone the act.
Across Advaita, Śuddhādvaita, Bhakti, and the modern voicesNīlakaṇṭha · Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara · Jñāneśvar · Tilak · RamsukhdasIn Nīlakaṇṭha, Puruṣottama, and 4 others’ words
Arjuna refuses to kill the Kauravas even though they are ready to kill him. The verse turns on the phrase 'ghnato 'pi', meaning 'even if they are slaying me'. Arjuna is not pleading for his own safety. He grants that the other side may strike him down, and he still will not strike back. Several commentators put this refusal in its strongest form: the wish to kill is not even present in his mind, let alone the act of killing.
Not for the kingdom of all three worlds would you do this, so the small rule of one earth, the thing truly at stake, weighs as nothing at all.
Across Advaita, Śuddhādvaita, and the modern voicesĀnandagiri · Dhanapati · Nīlakaṇṭha · Puruṣottama · Tilak · RamsukhdasIn Ānandagiri, Dhanapati, and 4 others’ words
The verse uses a 'how much more' argument to seal the refusal. 'Trailokya-rajya' means the kingdom of the three worlds; 'mahi' means the earth. Arjuna says he would not kill his kinsmen even to win the sovereignty of all three worlds, so the small prize actually at stake, mere rule over the earth, weighs nothing at all. The point of naming the larger prize is to make the smaller one look negligible by comparison: if the greatest reward cannot justify the act, the lesser reward certainly cannot.
And do not tell yourself there is delight in cutting down cruel men: no joy can live in one who has slaughtered his own, only a brief, deluded gladness fit for greed.
Across Advaita, BhedābhedaĀnandagiri · Madhusūdana · BhāskaraIn Ānandagiri, Madhusūdana, and 1 others’ words
Arjuna answers an unspoken objection that killing these particular enemies would actually be justified, and even pleasurable. The objection runs: set the others aside, the sons of Dhritarashtra are aggressors and cruel tormentors, and there can be delight in striking them down. Arjuna replies that no delight could come to those who remain alive after slaughtering their own kinsmen. The supposed pleasure is a momentary, deluded thing, fit only for greedy minds, and not worth the long ruin it would bring.
These are aggressors, yes, and the law would clear you for slaying them; still they remain your brothers and elders, to be honored, and to kill them brings only guilt and no real gain.
Across Advaita, BhedābhedaĀnandagiri · Madhusūdana · Dhanapati · BhāskaraIn Ānandagiri, Madhusūdana, and 2 others’ words
Arjuna also rejects the legal argument that slaying an aggressor carries no fault. He invokes, and overrides, the rule that one may kill an 'atatayin', an armed assailant who comes to burn, poison, attack, or seize one's wealth, land, or wife, since 'there is no fault for the slayer in the slaying of an aggressor'. Against this he holds that even if the Kauravas are aggressors, they are still brothers and elders, to be honored and cherished rather than killed. The deeper claim is that the general law forbidding harm outweighs the special permission to kill an aggressor, so that for those who slay kin only sin would cling, and no real gain.
You call upon the one who slew Madhu and stayed unstained; he destroyed to protect, while you, bound to these men by blood, fear the sin would cling to you.
Across AdvaitaMadhusūdana · DhanapatiIn Madhusūdana and Dhanapati’s words
Arjuna's address to Krishna as 'Madhusudana', slayer of the demon Madhu, is read by several commentators as a pointed hint rather than a mere name. The sense is: you who killed Madhu did so to protect, and you destroy without being stained by sin; we, bound to these men as kinsmen, cannot do the same. The vocative quietly contrasts Krishna's sinless slaying with the sin Arjuna fears would attach to his own.
This is the shared ground; it can be carried as it is. Below is where they differ.
Where they differthe divergence
Advaita Vedānta, in their fuller words
This reading develops the refusal through a chain of careful objections and answers, and grounds it in a rule of scriptural priority. To the objection that aggressors must be killed without hesitation, since 'one should slay the aggressor who comes on, without deliberating', the answer is that the dharma-scripture 'one should not injure' is stronger than the artha-scripture 'one should slay the aggressor'. The authority cited is Yajnavalkya: when two traditions conflict, the dharma-scripture overrides the artha-scripture. A further turn even imagines the Kauravas killing Arjuna's unresisting side, and concludes that in that case the sin falls on them alone, while those who do not fight remain untouched by sin and suffer no real loss. The vocative is read two ways: as inviting the sinless Krishna himself to slay them, and as marking Krishna's freedom from sin even when, at the dissolution of the world, he destroys all beings.
Bhedābheda, in their fuller words
This reading pauses on the grammar of the word 'priti', joy, noting that although joy is named by a primary derivative and so behaves somewhat like a substance, it does not lose its character as a state, and that in 'slaying' and 'joy' the agent is one and the same person; the very one who would do the killing is the one in whom joy is supposed to arise, and from the death of kinsmen no such joy can be born. It then states plainly that even granting the others are aggressors, brothers and the rest are to be honored, cherished, and cared for, and not slain, so that slaying them would leave sin alone clinging to the doer.
Kashmir Śaiva, in their fuller words
This reading makes 'sin' itself the real agent in the killing of armed assailants. The meaning offered is that it is sin, not Arjuna, that has already slain these foes and made them dependent, and that in slaying them sin would then take hold of the slayer too. 'Sin' here is defined as the failure, through greed and the like, to see the fault that is the destruction of the family. On this reading it is precisely this blindness that Arjuna is trying to avoid, which is why he goes on to set out the dharmas of the family in the verses that follow.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
This reading frames the refusal in terms of the inner roots of all violence. Drawing on a later verse that names desire, anger, and greed ('kama', 'krodha', 'lobha') as the three gates of hell, it argues that in war a person is moved in only two ways: by 'krodha', anger, to ward off what is unwanted, and by 'lobha', greed, to obtain what is wanted. Arjuna here forbids both. Even if the kinsmen, in their own anger or greed, strike at him and seek his death, he will not, out of his own anger or greed, slay them; he refuses to purchase the gates of hell. The doubled 'api' is read as saying first that he does not even obstruct their interest, and second that even if killing them could win the three worlds, which it cannot, he still would not do it.
A few questions to carry
These ask for understanding, not recall; each answer is settled by the commentary itself.
For a second sitting
Carry this with youwhat stays
One commentator offers a way to carry this verse inward. He points out that almost every harmful act we commit is driven by just two impulses: anger, the wish to push away what we do not want, and greed, the wish to grab what we do want. War is only the loudest example. Notice how often your own reactions, even small ones, trace back to one of these two. Someone obstructs you and anger rises; something attractive appears and greed reaches for it. Arjuna's refusal models a third option: to decline to act from either impulse, even when provoked, even when a reward is dangled. The teaching is not that the kinsmen deserve mercy, but that to strike from anger or greed is to buy, with one's own hands, the gates of one's own suffering. The practice is to catch the impulse before the act, and to ask whether anger or greed is the one holding the weapon.
When anger rises to push something away, or greed reaches to seize it, catch the impulse before the act, and ask which of the two is holding the weapon.
Read deeper
Everything a full study holds, folded below.
Word by word
All the commentary, woven together
The commentary, woven together
machine-assisted draft, pending review
Convergence
rjuna refuses to kill the Kauravas even though they are ready to kill him. The verse turns on the phrase 'ghnato 'pi', meaning 'even if they are slaying me'. Arjuna is not pleading for his own safety. He grants that the other side may strike him down, and he still will not strike back. Several commentators put this refusal in its strongest form: the wish to kill is not even present in his mind, let alone the act of killing.
Braided from 6 commentators
Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Sant Jñāneśvar · Lokmanya Tilak · Swami Ramsukhdas
The verse uses a 'how much more' argument to seal the refusal. 'Trailokya-rajya' means the kingdom of the three worlds; 'mahi' means the earth. Arjuna says he would not kill his kinsmen even to win the sovereignty of all three worlds, so the small prize actually at stake, mere rule over the earth, weighs nothing at all. The point of naming the larger prize is to make the smaller one look negligible by comparison: if the greatest reward cannot justify the act, the lesser reward certainly cannot.
Braided from 6 commentators
Śrī Ānandagiri · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Śrī Puruṣottama · Lokmanya Tilak · Swami Ramsukhdas
Arjuna answers an unspoken objection that killing these particular enemies would actually be justified, and even pleasurable. The objection runs: set the others aside, the sons of Dhritarashtra are aggressors and cruel tormentors, and there can be delight in striking them down. Arjuna replies that no delight could come to those who remain alive after slaughtering their own kinsmen. The supposed pleasure is a momentary, deluded thing, fit only for greedy minds, and not worth the long ruin it would bring.
Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Bhāskara
Arjuna also rejects the legal argument that slaying an aggressor carries no fault. He invokes, and overrides, the rule that one may kill an 'atatayin', an armed assailant who comes to burn, poison, attack, or seize one's wealth, land, or wife, since 'there is no fault for the slayer in the slaying of an aggressor'. Against this he holds that even if the Kauravas are aggressors, they are still brothers and elders, to be honored and cherished rather than killed. The deeper claim is that the general law forbidding harm outweighs the special permission to kill an aggressor, so that for those who slay kin only sin would cling, and no real gain.
Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrī Bhāskara
Arjuna's address to Krishna as 'Madhusudana', slayer of the demon Madhu, is read by several commentators as a pointed hint rather than a mere name. The sense is: you who killed Madhu did so to protect, and you destroy without being stained by sin; we, bound to these men as kinsmen, cannot do the same. The vocative quietly contrasts Krishna's sinless slaying with the sin Arjuna fears would attach to his own.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Dhanapati Sūri
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
This reading develops the refusal through a chain of careful objections and answers, and grounds it in a rule of scriptural priority. To the objection that aggressors must be killed without hesitation, since 'one should slay the aggressor who comes on, without deliberating', the answer is that the dharma-scripture 'one should not injure' is stronger than the artha-scripture 'one should slay the aggressor'. The authority cited is Yajnavalkya: when two traditions conflict, the dharma-scripture overrides the artha-scripture. A further turn even imagines the Kauravas killing Arjuna's unresisting side, and concludes that in that case the sin falls on them alone, while those who do not fight remain untouched by sin and suffer no real loss. The vocative is read two ways: as inviting the sinless Krishna himself to slay them, and as marking Krishna's freedom from sin even when, at the dissolution of the world, he destroys all beings.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Bhedabheda
This reading pauses on the grammar of the word 'priti', joy, noting that although joy is named by a primary derivative and so behaves somewhat like a substance, it does not lose its character as a state, and that in 'slaying' and 'joy' the agent is one and the same person; the very one who would do the killing is the one in whom joy is supposed to arise, and from the death of kinsmen no such joy can be born. It then states plainly that even granting the others are aggressors, brothers and the rest are to be honored, cherished, and cared for, and not slain, so that slaying them would leave sin alone clinging to the doer.
Śrī Bhāskara
Kashmir Shaivism
This reading makes 'sin' itself the real agent in the killing of armed assailants. The meaning offered is that it is sin, not Arjuna, that has already slain these foes and made them dependent, and that in slaying them sin would then take hold of the slayer too. 'Sin' here is defined as the failure, through greed and the like, to see the fault that is the destruction of the family. On this reading it is precisely this blindness that Arjuna is trying to avoid, which is why he goes on to set out the dharmas of the family in the verses that follow.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Modern
This reading frames the refusal in terms of the inner roots of all violence. Drawing on a later verse that names desire, anger, and greed ('kama', 'krodha', 'lobha') as the three gates of hell, it argues that in war a person is moved in only two ways: by 'krodha', anger, to ward off what is unwanted, and by 'lobha', greed, to obtain what is wanted. Arjuna here forbids both. Even if the kinsmen, in their own anger or greed, strike at him and seek his death, he will not, out of his own anger or greed, slay them; he refuses to purchase the gates of hell. The doubled 'api' is read as saying first that he does not even obstruct their interest, and second that even if killing them could win the three worlds, which it cannot, he still would not do it.
Swami Ramsukhdas
A Seeker Asks
Is Arjuna's refusal to strike back even at people trying to kill him genuine spiritual nonviolence, or is it the despair and confusion that Krishna will spend the rest of the Gita correcting?
On its own terms, the refusal here is principled, not merely frightened. Arjuna explicitly grants that the other side may kill him ('even if they are slaying me') and still declines to strike back, which is not the logic of self-preservation. He reaches for the highest conceivable reward, the sovereignty of the three worlds, and rejects even that as a justification, so his stand is held against the strongest possible temptation, not the weakest.
Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Lokmanya Tilak · Swami Ramsukhdas
His reasoning is also genuinely moral rather than evasive. He answers the hard objections head on: that these enemies are cruel, and that the law itself permits killing an aggressor. He concedes both points and still refuses, holding that the bond of kinship and the deeper law against harm outweigh the permission to kill, so that only sin, and no real gain, would come of it.
Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Bhāskara · Dhanapati Sūri
At the same time, the commentators here are reading Arjuna's own words, not pronouncing Krishna's verdict on them. One voice names the very flaw that will later be exposed: the 'sin' Arjuna dreads is itself a kind of not-seeing born of greed and the like, and his elaborate appeal to family duty is the sign of that confusion as much as its cure. So the honest answer is that the refusal is sincere and even noble in its motive, yet it is still spoken from inside the crisis the rest of the Gita will work to clarify; its sincerity and its incompleteness are both real.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Contemplation
One commentator offers a way to carry this verse inward. He points out that almost every harmful act we commit is driven by just two impulses: anger, the wish to push away what we do not want, and greed, the wish to grab what we do want. War is only the loudest example. Notice how often your own reactions, even small ones, trace back to one of these two. Someone obstructs you and anger rises; something attractive appears and greed reaches for it. Arjuna's refusal models a third option: to decline to act from either impulse, even when provoked, even when a reward is dangled. The teaching is not that the kinsmen deserve mercy, but that to strike from anger or greed is to buy, with one's own hands, the gates of one's own suffering. The practice is to catch the impulse before the act, and to ask whether anger or greed is the one holding the weapon.
Sit with this · Swami Ramsukhdas
All the translations and commentary
Pull up a chair.
You have come to sit with this verse. When you are ready to hear the translators and the commentators in full, tap a name in The seating.