kimidaṁ prāṇahatyāṁ ca kariṣye
“What shall I do, having killed these beings?”
Structure
kim idam prāṇa hatyām ca kariṣye
ahaṁ (I) kariṣye (will do) kim (what) idam (this) prāṇa (of living beings) hatyām (killing) ca (and)
Word-by-Word Grammar
| Word | IAST | Type | Grammar | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| kim | kim | indeclinable | — | what |
| idam | idam | pronoun | accusative · neuter · neuter | this |
| prāṇa | prāṇa | noun | nominative · singular · masculine | life or vital breath |
| hatyām | hatyām | noun | accusative · singular · feminine | killing |
| ca | ca | indeclinable | — | and |
| kariṣye | kariṣye | verb | √kṛ · liṅ-optative · first | I will do |
Scholarly Commentary
Advaita Vedānta (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya): In this verse, Arjuna's lamentation, 'What shall I do, having killed these beings?' underscores the non-dual reading of the Gītā. Shankara, in his commentary on the Gītā (BG 11.36), interprets Arjuna's anguish as an illusion born from ignorance of the ultimate reality. He argues that the Self (ātman) is untouched by actions, including the act of killing. The real issue is not the killing itself but the mistaken identification of the Self with the body, leading to the misconception of doer-ship. This verse points to the brahman-ātman identity, highlighting that true knowledge liberates one from the cycle of actions and their consequences, revealing the ultimate non-dual reality. This interpretation emphasizes the distinction between the Self and the body, encouraging the seeker to realize the immutable and non-acting nature of the ātman. Through this understanding, one transcends the limitations of the worldly sphere and attains peace.
Vaiṣṇava tradition (Rāmānujācārya / Madhvācārya): The Vaiṣṇava tradition, with its emphasis on bhakti and the personal relationship between the jīva (individual self) and Īśvara (the Lord), views Arjuna's dilemma as an expression of his love and compassion for his kin. Rāmānujācārya, in his Gītā Bhāṣya, interprets this verse as reflecting Arjuna's concern for the welfare of his relatives, demonstrating the jīva's natural inclination towards attachment and affection, which, when directed towards the Lord, becomes the path to liberation. For Rāmānujācārya, Arjuna's question is not just about avoiding sin but about understanding his duty (svadharma) in relation to the Lord's will. This verse is pivotal in highlighting the conflict between worldly duties and spiritual aspirations, resolving it through the concept of prapatti (surrender) to the Lord, who is the ultimate guide and protector. Madhvācārya, on the other hand, might emphasize the role of the Lord's grace in resolving such moral dilemmas, pointing to the verse as an example of how one's actions, even in the face of great moral challenge, can be guided by a devotion to the Lord.
Neo-Vedānta (Swami Vivekānanda / S. Rādhākrishnan): Swami Vivekānanda interprets Arjuna's anguish in this verse as a symbol of the universal human struggle with morality and duty. In his lectures, Vivekānanda often emphasized the practical application of Vedāntic principles to everyday life, suggesting that true strength lies not in avoiding actions but in performing them without attachment to their consequences. This verse, for Vivekānanda, represents the turning point where Arjuna, and by extension, every individual, must confront the reality of action and inaction. It calls for a deeper understanding of one's true nature and the embracing of one's duties (svadharma) without fear of the consequences, fostering a sense of fearlessness and selflessness. Radhakrishnan, in a similar vein, might view this verse as an illustration of the need for moral courage in the face of difficult choices, advocating for a synthesis of the individual's spiritual aspirations with social responsibilities, thereby contributing to the betterment of society and the realization of one's full potential.