For the first time, Arjuna turns the charge of sin onto himself, and names greed for a kingdom as its cause.
He has spent many verses describing what war will destroy. Here he stops describing and confesses: a firm, settled resolve to kill his own kinsmen, made only so that his side might win a throne. Whether he has correctly named the fault is the question the verse leaves open.
Alas, what a terrible thing: we have firmly resolved to commit a great sin, ready to kill our own kinsmen out of greed for the pleasures of a kingdom.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Arjuna has spent many verses arguing outward, describing what war will do to family, to women, to the ancestors, to dharma itself. Here, just before he lays down his bow, something shifts. The accusation turns inward. It is no longer they who are wrong; it is we, he says, who have resolved on a great sin.
The teaching
The words themselves carry the whole weight before any argument does: alas, what a terrible thing, we have firmly resolved to commit a great sin. This is not a slip or an accident he is confessing to; the word he uses means a settled, deliberate decision. And the sin has a name and an object: readiness to kill his own kinsmen, the people bound to him by blood, for the sake of a kingdom's pleasures. Every source that comments on this line at all treats the horror as real. Whatever else divides them, none reads this as rhetoric. It is the sound of a man who already knows right from wrong, watching himself act against it anyway. But sincerity of feeling is not the same as accuracy of diagnosis, and the sources that do engage this verse closely press on exactly that gap. Is the fault where Arjuna places it, in the act of war and the greed behind it? Or does the fault run deeper, into a habit of mind that fixes on gain and on particular people as mine, a habit that could survive even if this particular war were called off? The verse states the confession. It does not, by itself, settle where the confession should actually land.
The doubt that rises
Is this the voice of real conscience, correctly recognizing a fault, or is it grief that has felt the horror accurately while still misnaming where the sin lies? And for the acaryas whose comment on this specific line is thin or missing entirely, what should a reader do with that silence, treat it as nothing to report, or as itself worth noticing?
Where the paths divide
Carried by Madhusudana's record; no separate word survives from Shankara on this line.
On this reading, dharma outranks life itself, and for embodied beings non-injury is the highest duty. Arjuna's coming refusal to resist, even at the cost of his own life, is treated as a purifying expiation, in fact the safer and more wholly beneficial course compared with living through the killing of his own kin. No comment from Shankara himself survives for this particular verse; this reading belongs to the later Advaita-facing commentary alone, and is reported here as such rather than folded into his silence.
A general frame only, not a comment reaching this verse's specific claim.
Ramanuja's own record does not address greed for kingdom as this verse's named cause. His one stated comment, covering the whole passage from 1.26 through 1.47, frames Arjuna broadly as great of soul, breaking under love for his kin and a genuine fear of sin. That frame can honestly be carried forward here; a fuller Vishishtadvaita argument built specifically on this line's own claim would not be his recorded word.
No extant comment; noted as an absence rather than filled in.
Madhva left no comment on this verse. His surviving Gita commentary begins only at 2.11, so the whole of Arjuna's confession here passes without a word from him. Any Dvaita-flavored extension, that even the capacity to resolve on sin is itself a dependent competence granted by the Lord, would have to be built from his general teaching elsewhere and offered only as a labeled conjecture, never as his own judgment on this line.
A precise inner test for what makes killing a great sin.
Abhinavagupta reads the sin with surgical precision: killing is grave specifically when done coveting a particular fruit and fixing on particular victims as one's own. He reads Arjuna's 'we' as embracing both armies alike, all caught in the same lack of discernment, so the fault is not partisan. Since all act without discernment, withdrawal is fitting for the one who has it, but he signals that something still to come in the dialogue is more fitting still.
Thin source: a close paraphrase, not an extended argument.
What survives from Sridhara here is a brief restatement of the verse's own words, confirming its plain sense without building a separate doctrinal case. A devotional extension is imaginable, that grief still measured in terms of kingdom and kin has not yet turned toward the Lord, but that must be flagged as an extrapolation consistent with his broader commentary, not his own recorded word on this particular line.
An answer to the standing objection that individual restraint changes nothing.
Madhusudana's own resolution of an unspoken objection, that Arjuna's restraint will not stop others from fighting anyway, models something usable for a present-day reader: one's own conduct can remain answerable to oneself regardless of what the rest of the field decides. The resolve not to add one's own hand to a wrong is treated as complete in itself, not contingent on controlling the outcome.
All the sources that comment on this line agree the horror is genuine. They do not agree on where the fault it names actually lies, in the war itself, in greed as a specific craving, or in a deeper habit of fixing on gain and on particular people as mine. And for two of the six acaryas, Ramanuja and Madhva, no reading of this specific verse survives at all; this page reports that absence rather than closing it.
A question to carry
When you have felt this same shock at your own resolve, has it ever led you to examine the craving underneath it, or only to regret the situation you found yourself in?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
May the shock that is real in you be followed by the examination it deserves, so that the naming of a fault becomes the beginning of seeing it clearly, not only the feeling of it.
Each school is voiced from the commentators named above. Their full words, every translation, and where the schools agree and differ wait in the reading desk just below. Open the commentary desk.
This is the last full statement of Arjuna's case before he lays down his bow two verses later; the self-rebuke voiced here is what finally breaks his resolve to fight.
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.
Alas, what a terrible thing: the charge turns inward now, an outburst of shock rather than a measured argument.
Across Kashmir Śaiva, Bhakti, AdvaitaAbhinavagupta · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Abhinavagupta, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
This verse is Arjuna's cry of self-rebuke. He has spent many verses accusing the coming war of ruining family and dharma; here, for the first time, the charge turns inward, onto himself and his own side. 'Alas, what a terrible thing' is not argument but outburst, the sound of a man overwhelmed by what he believes he is about to do.
The sin is named plainly, resolved upon rather than stumbled into, and aimed at his own kinsmen, bound to him by blood.
Across Kashmir Śaiva, BhaktiAbhinavagupta · ŚrīdharaIn Abhinavagupta and Śrīdhara’s words
What appalls him is named without softening: a great sin, one they have firmly resolved upon, not slipped into by accident. The object of that sin is just as plain, his own kinsmen, svajana, the very people bound to him by blood, about to be killed by a settled decision rather than by chance.
The cause he gives is greed for a kingdom's pleasures, which is what makes the act feel to him so shameful.
Across Bhakti, AdvaitaŚrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śrīdhara and Madhusūdana’s words
Arjuna gives the resolve a single cause: greed for the pleasures of kingship, rajya-sukha-lobha. In his own eyes the entire war reduces to this, kinsmen dying only so that his side may win a throne and what comes with it. Naming greed as the root is exactly what makes the act feel to him unbearable and unworthy.
No acarya on record doubts his sincerity, whatever they make of whether he has named the true fault.
Across Kashmir Śaiva, Bhakti, AdvaitaAbhinavagupta · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Abhinavagupta, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
Every acarya on record for this verse treats Arjuna's horror as sincere. Whether or not they endorse his conclusion, none of them read this as performance; it is taken as the genuine reckoning of someone who already knows the difference between right and wrong and is watching himself act against it.
This verse is the hinge where his resolve to withdraw from the war becomes explicit and, soon, irreversible.
Across Kashmir Śaiva, AdvaitaAbhinavagupta · MadhusūdanaIn Abhinavagupta and Madhusūdana’s words
The verse also marks a hinge in the dialogue: this is the last full statement of Arjuna's case before he turns, two verses later, to laying down his bow and refusing to fight. Whatever the schools make of it afterward, all treat this line as the verse where his resolve to withdraw becomes explicit and irreversible.
This is the shared ground; it can be carried as it is. Below is where they differ.
Where they differthe divergence
Viśiṣṭādvaita, in their fuller words
Ramanuja's own record does not speak to this verse's specific content; his stated comment, given once at 1.26 for the whole passage through 1.47, frames Arjuna's grief broadly as the mark of a noble, compassionate heart breaking under love for his kin and fear of sin. Nothing in what survives addresses greed for kingdom as this verse's named cause, so no further Vishishtadvaita argument can honestly be built on this line in his voice.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva left no comment on this verse at all; his surviving Gita commentary begins only at 2.11. A Dvaita-flavored extension is conceivable, that even the resolve to sin is exercised only within a dependent, Lord-granted competence, but this would be a conditional extrapolation from his general teaching elsewhere, never his own recorded judgment on this specific line.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
What survives from Sridhara is a brief, close paraphrase of the verse's own words rather than an extended argument in his own voice. A devotional extension is plausible, that grief still measured by loss of kingdom and kin has not yet turned its gaze toward the Lord, but this must be flagged as an extrapolation consistent with his broader commentary, not his own recorded word on this particular line.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Read for a present-day seeker, Madhusudana's answer to the unspoken objection, that Arjuna's restraint changes nothing since others will fight anyway, models a distinct kind of integrity: one's own conduct can remain uncorrupted by an outcome one cannot control. The resolve not to add one's own hand to the killing is treated as complete in itself, whatever the rest of the field decides to do.
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
Sit for a moment with the shock in this verse before moving past it. Notice a resolve you have made, even a small one, that you now suspect was driven by wanting something for yourself dressed up as a larger cause. Do not rush to fix it or excuse it. Just let the same two words rise: alas, what a terrible thing. That plain naming, without argument yet, is where honest self-examination has to start.
When you feel this same shock at your own resolve, do not rush past it toward an excuse; let the naming of the fault be exact before you decide what to do about it.
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
his verse is Arjuna's cry of self-rebuke. He has spent many verses accusing the coming war of ruining family and dharma; here, for the first time, the charge turns inward, onto himself and his own side. 'Alas, what a terrible thing' is not argument but outburst, the sound of a man overwhelmed by what he believes he is about to do.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
What appalls him is named without softening: a great sin, one they have firmly resolved upon, not slipped into by accident. The object of that sin is just as plain, his own kinsmen, svajana, the very people bound to him by blood, about to be killed by a settled decision rather than by chance.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Arjuna gives the resolve a single cause: greed for the pleasures of kingship, rajya-sukha-lobha. In his own eyes the entire war reduces to this, kinsmen dying only so that his side may win a throne and what comes with it. Naming greed as the root is exactly what makes the act feel to him unbearable and unworthy.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Every acarya on record for this verse treats Arjuna's horror as sincere. Whether or not they endorse his conclusion, none of them read this as performance; it is taken as the genuine reckoning of someone who already knows the difference between right and wrong and is watching himself act against it.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The verse also marks a hinge in the dialogue: this is the last full statement of Arjuna's case before he turns, two verses later, to laying down his bow and refusing to fight. Whatever the schools make of it afterward, all treat this line as the verse where his resolve to withdraw becomes explicit and irreversible.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Madhusudana reads the verse as building toward a principle higher than survival itself: dharma outranks life, and for embodied beings non-injury is the supreme duty. Arjuna will stand unresisting rather than add to the coming sin, treating his own likely death as a purifying expiation, in fact the safer and more beneficial course compared with living through such a slaughter. No separate word survives from Shankara himself on this line; this reading is carried by the later Advaita-facing commentary alone.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja's own record does not speak to this verse's specific content; his stated comment, given once at 1.26 for the whole passage through 1.47, frames Arjuna's grief broadly as the mark of a noble, compassionate heart breaking under love for his kin and fear of sin. Nothing in what survives addresses greed for kingdom as this verse's named cause, so no further Vishishtadvaita argument can honestly be built on this line in his voice.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva left no comment on this verse at all; his surviving Gita commentary begins only at 2.11. A Dvaita-flavored extension is conceivable, that even the resolve to sin is exercised only within a dependent, Lord-granted competence, but this would be a conditional extrapolation from his general teaching elsewhere, never his own recorded judgment on this specific line.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta locates the gravity of the sin in a precise inner condition: killing is a great sin specifically when done coveting a particular fruit and fixing on particular victims as one's own. He reads Arjuna's 'we' as embracing both armies alike, all caught in the same lack of discernment, so that the fault named here is not partisan. Since all act without discernment, withdrawal is fitting for the one who has it, Arjuna, but he signals that something still to come is more fitting still.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
What survives from Sridhara is a brief, close paraphrase of the verse's own words rather than an extended argument in his own voice. A devotional extension is plausible, that grief still measured by loss of kingdom and kin has not yet turned its gaze toward the Lord, but this must be flagged as an extrapolation consistent with his broader commentary, not his own recorded word on this particular line.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Read for a present-day seeker, Madhusudana's answer to the unspoken objection, that Arjuna's restraint changes nothing since others will fight anyway, models a distinct kind of integrity: one's own conduct can remain uncorrupted by an outcome one cannot control. The resolve not to add one's own hand to the killing is treated as complete in itself, whatever the rest of the field decides to do.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
Arjuna sounds genuinely appalled at himself here. Is this the voice of real conscience, or is it grief still tangled up in the very attachment it claims to be renouncing?
Every acarya on record treats his horror as sincere, not staged. The shock is real, and a person capable of this much self-rebuke clearly still knows right from wrong. That much can be granted before asking anything further.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta · Śrīdhara Svāmī
But notice what Arjuna names as the fault: the war itself, and greed for a throne. Abhinavagupta's finer test cuts closer, that killing is grave specifically when done coveting a particular fruit and fixing on particular victims as one's own. That test asks about Arjuna's own inner stance now, in this very speech, not only about the coming battle.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Madhusudana's reading suggests one honest way through: let your own resolve be answerable only for your own hand, not for what others will do regardless. That distinguishes real conscience, which asks what is right for you to do, from a grief that is really still bargaining over outcomes you were never going to control anyway.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Contemplation
Sit for a moment with the shock in this verse before moving past it. Notice a resolve you have made, even a small one, that you now suspect was driven by wanting something for yourself dressed up as a larger cause. Do not rush to fix it or excuse it. Just let the same two words rise: alas, what a terrible thing. That plain naming, without argument yet, is where honest self-examination has to start.
Sit with this · sonnet-5-authored
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, open a tradition in the doorways below, or add a voice by name above.
Also hear this verse, tradition by tradition.