न चैतद्विद्मः कतरन्नो गरीयो यद्यव जयेम यदि वा नो जयेयुः। यानेव हत्वा न जिजीविषाम स्तेऽवस्थिताः प्रमुखे धार्तराष्ट्राः।।2.6।।
na ca etad‑vidmaḥ kataranno garīyo yadvā jayema yadi vā no jayeyuḥ | yān eva hatvā na jijīvīṣāma te avasthitāḥ pramukhe dhārtarāṣṭrāḥ ||2.6||
Translation
We do not even know which outcome is better for us—whether we should conquer them or be conquered by them. Even after killing them we would not wish to live. Yet they stand in front of us, aligned with the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, on the battlefield.
Word Meanings
na — nor; ca — also; etat — this; vidmaḥ — do we know; katarat — which; naḥ — for us; garīyaḥ — better; yat vā — whether; jayema — we may conquer; yadi — if; vā — or; naḥ — us; jayeyuḥ — they conquer; yān — those who; eva — certainly; hatvā — by killing; na — never; jijīviṣāmaḥ — we would want to live; te — all of them; avasthitāḥ — are situated; pramukhe — in the front; dhārtarāṣṭrāḥ — the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra.
Understanding the Verse
In this verse Arjuna expresses the deep confusion and moral dilemma that arises at the very onset of the war. He acknowledges his ignorance (na ca etad‑vidmaḥ) about the true benefit that might follow the conflict. This uncertainty is not merely tactical; it is existential. The question of whether victory (jayema) or defeat (jayeyuḥ) is preferable reflects a larger philosophical inquiry into the nature of dharma (righteousness) and the consequences of action. Arjuna’s mind is clouded by the prospect of causing the death of his own kin, teachers, and friends, and he wonders if any triumph can justify such loss.
The phrase ‘garīyo’ – ‘better’ – implies a comparative assessment. Arjuna is not just weighing win or loss; he is weighing the moral weight of each. The verse captures a pivotal moment where the warrior’s heroic resolve clashes with his ethical sensitivity. By stating ‘yān eva hatvā na jijīvīṣāma’, Arjuna suggests that even if he were to slay his adversaries, he would not desire to live with the guilt and grief that would follow. This profound aversion to life under a mantle of bloodshed emphasizes the depth of his compassion and the inner conflict between his Kshatriya duty and his love for his relatives.
Moreover, the latter half of the shloka introduces the opposing side: ‘te avasthitāḥ pramukhe dhārtarāṣṭrāḥ’. The reference to Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s sons highlights the political and familial dimensions of the battle. They are not faceless enemies but kinsmen, the very princes whose defeat would bring about the end of the familial line. Their presence ‘in the front’ underscores the unavoidable confrontation that Arjuna must face. This sets the stage for Krishna’s teachings that follow, where the discourse shifts from the external battlefield to the inner battlefield of the soul.
Thus, verse 2.6 serves as a critical turning point. It captures the raw human emotions that precede the spiritual teachings of the Gita. Arjuna’s admission of ignorance and his reluctance to live after murder open the door for Krishna to introduce the concepts of selfless action (karma‑yoga), the eternal nature of the soul (ātman), and the ultimate duty of a warrior to uphold dharma irrespective of personal loss. The verse, therefore, is not merely a statement of hesitation but a profound invitation to explore the deeper purpose of action beyond immediate outcomes.
