पापमेवाश्रयेदस्मान् हत्वैतानाततायिनः। तस्मान्नार्हा वयं हन्तुं धार्तराष्ट्रान् सबान्धवान्॥
pāpam evāśrayed asmān hatvaitān ātatāyinaḥ / tasmān nārhā vayaṃ hantuṃ dhārtarāṣṭrān sabāndhavān
Even the legal right to kill aggressors doesn't make it right — for Arjuna, love supersedes law.
Word by word (5)
- pāpam eva āśrayet asmān
- — sin will cling to us / it is sin alone that would come to us
- hatvā etān ātatāyinaḥ
- — from killing these aggressors · 'Ātatāyinaḥ' — those who have committed the six great offenses (arson, poisoning, attack with weapons, seizure of wealth, seizure of fields, abduction of women). The aggressors, in traditional dharmaśāstra, forfeit certain legal protections. Arjuna knows this — yet still chooses not to act.
- tasmāt
- — therefore
- na arhāḥ vayam
- — we are not justified / it is not right for us
- hantum dhārtarāṣṭrān sa-bāndhavān
- — to kill the sons of Dhritarashtra and their relatives
'Even if they are aggressors — even if tradition says we have the right — only sin would come to us from killing them. Therefore we are not justified in slaying the sons of Dhritarashtra and their kin.'
A modern analogy
You have every legal right to sue someone. You choose not to, because the person is family and the lawsuit would destroy the relationship. The law says you can; love says you shouldn't. Arjuna is making exactly this argument — at the scale of a war.
What it does NOT mean
Arjuna knows that the Kauravas are ātatāyinaḥ — aggressors who forfeited legal protection under dharmaśāstra. He is not ignorant of his legal right. He is choosing to place love above legal right. This is a morally significant choice, and one the Gita will address at length.
Take with you
- Legal justification and moral justification are not the same thing — Arjuna understands this distinction.
- The decision to transcend one's legal rights out of love is deeply human. It is also, the Gita argues, not enough on its own to determine right action.
- Arjuna's word 'sin' (pāpa) is important — he is thinking in terms of long-term karmic consequence, not just immediate outcomes.
Verse 36 introduces the concept of 'pāpa' (sin) formally into Arjuna's argument. He acknowledges that the Kauravas are legally aggressors (ātatāyinaḥ) — which in dharmaśāstra tradition justifies killing them without sin. Yet he argues that sin would still attach to them. This is either a confusion about dharmaśāstra (which Krishna would correct) or a statement that Arjuna's personal moral code transcends the legal code. Most commentators take the latter view: Arjuna is elevating love and relationship above technical legal justification, which is admirable in its motivation but ultimately incomplete as a guide to right action in a dharma-crisis.
Public-domain translations (3) compare all →
Sin only would attach itself to us if we were to kill these aggressors. Therefore it is not right for us to kill the sons of Dhritarashtra and our kinsmen. [1]
Sin would only attach to us if we were to kill these, although they are aggressors. Therefore we are not justified in slaying the sons of Dhritarashtra and our relatives. [4]
Only sin would be ours if we killed these Dhritarashtraites who are our own relatives. We are not justified in slaying the sons of Dhritarashtra. [9]
This verse speaks to
Where this thread continues
When families collapse, the traditions that hold communities together collapse with them.
Your own imperfect path beats another's perfect path. Death in your own dharma is better. Another's dharma brings fear.
I am Time, the world-destroyer — even without you, none of these warriors shall survive; they are already slain!
Even the fathers-in-law and dearest friends — on both sides. No one is safely 'other.'
A blind king asks what happened on the battlefield — and the Gita begins.
Arjuna sees his own people ready to die — and his body breaks before his mind can argue.