गुरूनहत्वा हि महानुभावान् श्रेयो भोक्तुं भैक्ष्यमपीह लोके। हत्वार्थकामांस्तु गुरूनिहैव भुञ्जीय भोगान् रुधिरप्रदिग्धान्॥
gurūn ahatvā hi mahānubhāvān śreyo bhoktuṃ bhaikṣyam apīha loke / hatvārtha-kāmāṃs tu gurūn ihaiva bhuñjīya bhogān rudhira-pradigdhān
Better a beggar's life than pleasures paid for with my teachers' blood.
Word by word (5)
- gurūn ahatvā mahānubhāvān
- — rather than killing these great-souled teachers
- śreyaḥ bhoktum bhaikṣyam api iha loke
- — it is better to eat even beggars' food in this world · Bhaikṣyam — food from begging. The ultimate humiliation for a warrior-king class is to beg. Yet Arjuna says this is preferable to killing his teachers. The comparison is deliberately extreme.
- hatvā artha-kāmān gurūn
- — having slain the teachers who are greedy for wealth
- iha eva bhuñjīya bhogān
- — here in this world I would enjoy pleasures
- rudhira-pradigdhān
- — smeared with blood / tainted with blood
'It is better to live in this world begging for food than to kill these great-souled teachers. Even if they are greedy for wealth — even if they are on the wrong side — any enjoyment I get afterward would be smeared with their blood.'
A modern analogy
A person who says: 'I would rather start over from nothing than keep what I have if it means betraying those who made me.' The willingness to give up everything earned rather than stain it with betrayal is a form of moral clarity — even if it leads to wrong conclusions about the available options.
Take with you
- Arjuna's 'rudhira-pradigdhān' — blood-smeared pleasures — captures how moral compromise taints everything it produces.
- The extreme comparison (begging vs. blood-stained feasting) shows that Arjuna is not calculating but feeling his way toward a principle.
- He acknowledges the teachers may be on the wrong side ('greedy for wealth') — but this doesn't resolve his obligation to them.
Verse 5 contains one of the most powerful images in Chapter 2: 'rudhira-pradigdhān bhogān' — pleasures smeared with blood. Arjuna has reached the principle that underlies all his arguments: that the moral quality of what we do changes the quality of everything that follows. A kingdom won through killing one's teachers is not a kingdom that can be enjoyed — it is soaked in the very act that produced it. This is a sophisticated intuition. It anticipates what Buddhist ethics calls 'tainted enjoyment' and what modern psychology calls 'moral residue' — the way that ethical compromise does not stay contained but colors subsequent experience.
Public-domain translations (3) compare all →
Better would it be to live in this world by begging than to slay these noble teachers. Even if I were to slay them here, all my enjoyments in this world would be stained with blood. [4]
Better to live on beggar's bread With those we love alive, Than taste their blood in rich feasts spread, And guiltily survive! [7]
It is better to live in this world even on alms, than to kill these venerable teachers. If I kill even the desirers of worldly things among them, all my pleasures here would be smeared with blood. [9]
This verse speaks to
Where this thread continues
Your right is to act — never to the fruits. Don't act for results. Don't hide in inaction.
Your own imperfect path beats another's perfect path. Death in your own dharma is better. Another's dharma brings fear.
Sāttvic sukha: poison-like at first, nectar-like at the end — born of the clarity of Self-knowing intellect.
Who measures others' joy and pain by the standard of their own — seeing the same everywhere — is the supreme yogi.
Your own mind is your best friend when mastered; your worst enemy when not.
Not hating, friendly, compassionate, without 'mine' or 'I', equal in pain and joy, forgiving — the dear devotee!