Chapter 2 · Verse 31·Spoken by Krishna
स्वधर्ममपि चावेक्ष्य न विकम्पितुमर्हसि। धर्म्याद्धि युद्धाछ्रेयोऽन्यत्क्षत्रियस्य न विद्यते
swa-dharmam api chāvekṣhya na vikampitum arhasi dharmyāddhi yuddhāch chhreyo ’nyat kṣhatriyasya na vidyate
And considering your own duty, you should not waver. For a warrior, there is nothing better than a righteous battle.
Word by Word
Saved for this reading session
Three movements · tap a label to switch
Sanskrit recitation by Swami Brahmānanda
Audio from the Gītā Supersite, IIT Kanpur
Synthesis · a glossed leaf
machine-assisted draft, pending review
Convergence
rishna now opens a second, separate line of argument. Up to this point he has consoled Arjuna with knowledge of the Self (atman), the part of us that is never born and never dies. That argument applied to everyone alike. Here the word 'too' or 'even' (api) signals a shift: setting the Self aside, look now at your own duty. 'Svadharma' means one's own duty, the work that belongs to a person by their place and nature. Several commentators stress that this is a fresh consideration, not a repetition: the earlier teaching cured the general delusion that the Self can be killed, while this verse turns to Arjuna's particular confusion, that his own work, fighting, is somehow wrong.
Braided from 9 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Swami Sivananda · Lokmanya Tilak
Battle is the kshatriya's own duty, the duty native to the warrior class. So Arjuna should not waver, should not be shaken or 'tremble' and turn back from it. Some commentators link this directly to Arjuna's earlier physical collapse, when he said his body shook and his hair stood on end; that very trembling, Krishna answers, is unfitting for one whose duty is to fight. The duty is called 'natural' or born of one's nature, but one commentator cautions that 'natural' here does not mean unscriptural or merely instinctive: it means the work suited to one's class and stage of life, the work the warrior's own nature is fitted for.
Braided from 14 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Rāmānujācārya · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Śrīla Baladeva · Sant Jñāneśvar · Swami Sivananda · Lokmanya Tilak
For a kshatriya there is no greater good than a righteous war. The key word is 'dharmya', meaning lawful, in keeping with dharma, not at variance with right. So the verse does not praise war as such; it praises only war that does not depart from dharma, war fought by lawful means. One commentator spells out what 'lawful' rules out: weapons are not to be used against someone disarmed, retreating, or seeking refuge. Within those bounds, nothing else a kshatriya could do counts as a higher good than this. Several note that this duty even secures the warrior's good in the next world.
Braided from 12 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Rāmānujācārya · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Sant Jñāneśvar · Swami Sivananda · Lokmanya Tilak · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Vedānta Deśika
This righteous war is good because it carries out the wider duties of the warrior. Through victory over the earth, war makes possible the protection of the people, the support of brahmins and teachers, and the performance of sacrifices and similar lawful works. So the fighting is not an end in itself but the means by which a kshatriya upholds the whole order he is responsible for. Commentators ground this in tradition: they quote the sage Parashara, that a warrior, weapon in hand, protecting his subjects and punishing wrongdoers, should govern the earth with righteousness, and Manu, that a king summoned to battle should not turn away, remembering the warrior's duty. One adds that the word 'king' there means the kshatriya class as a whole, so Arjuna cannot excuse himself by thinking this binds only a ruling monarch.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrīla Baladeva · Rāmānujācārya
The verse is a direct reply to Arjuna's earlier protest, 'I see no good in slaying my own people in battle.' Krishna is correcting the premise of that protest. Arjuna spoke that way, and feared that killing his elders and kinsmen would bring sin and even hell, only because he was not weighing the scripture on duty. Once the scripture on a kshatriya's dharma is considered, the conclusion reverses: this very battle is the highest good open to him, not the evil he imagined.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Baladeva
Divergence
Viśiṣṭādvaita
This school answers Arjuna's deepest worry, that fighting means real harm to the people he kills, by an extended comparison with sacrifice. The killing of the sacrificial animal in rites such as the agnishomiya is permitted by scripture and is no true injury at all. Scripture itself declares that the ritual sets the animal down a far meaner body and carries it to a blessed body and to heaven, citing the mantra 'truly you do not die by this, you are not harmed; you go to the gods by paths easy to travel.' So the ritual killing is actually the protecting of the animal, just as a surgeon's cutting protects the sick man. Battle is parallel: scripture has already promised that those who die in it gain far more blessed bodies, so righteous war, like sacrifice, is something one need not waver about. One source in this school works out the logic carefully: a general prohibition against killing is overridden by a stronger specific scriptural permission, the standard rule of general-versus-specific (utsarga and apavada); and true 'himsa', harm, is action that brings about loss and ruin, whereas here the character of the act is the very opposite, protection. He also takes up and answers the Sankhya objection that the violence in sacrifice cannot be cleared of being harm, holding instead that the soma rite is accepted as not unrighteous because scripture instructs that no harm or fault attaches to it.
Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika
Bhakti
This commentator reads these two verses within a larger Gaudiya frame about action and its fruits. He places them in a sequence: the Lord first taught knowledge of the individual soul to everyone, then will teach that desireless action with a pure heart steadies one in Self-knowledge; and these two verses, by contrast, make the point that action performed with desire yields its desired fruits. On that frame he treats war as a constant duty enjoined on the warrior, like the fire-sacrifice. He uses the same sacrificial analogy as others: the slaying of enemies in battle, like the slaying of the sacrificial animal in the Agnishtoma, brings no demerit, because in both cases the killing is itself a benefit to the one slain, who lays down a lower body and world and gains a divine body and world. He supports this with tradition that kings slain facing battle go to heaven, and that consecrated sacrificial animals likewise attain heaven.
Śrīla Baladeva
Advaita Vedānta
Within this school one commentator adds a point aimed at the seeker who cares only about liberation and might think a warrior's victory is irrelevant to that goal. He argues that even for one who seeks liberation, victory won through this svadharma yields the resources for sacrifice and for righteous rule, and these in turn lead to inner purification. So performing the warrior's duty is not opposed to the spiritual path; it produces the purity of heart that prepares a person for higher knowledge.
Dhanapati Sūri
A Seeker Asks
If this verse calls war the highest good for a warrior and says it brings no sin, how is that not a blanket religious license to kill?
The verse never blesses war as such. Its whole weight rests on one word, 'dharmya', lawful, in keeping with right. The praise is strictly for war that does not depart from dharma and is fought by lawful means; an unrighteous war is simply not what is being commended.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Rāmānujācārya · Lokmanya Tilak
Lawful here has concrete limits, not just a pious label. One commentator notes that weapons are not to be turned on someone who is disarmed, retreating, or has sought refuge. The constraint is built into the act, so 'righteous war' excludes the very cruelties that make violence merely violence.
Vedānta Deśika
The good lies in the duty's purpose, not in the killing. War is praised because through it the warrior protects the people, supports those who serve the sacred, and upholds the order he is responsible for. It is the means by which he carries out his charge, which is why tradition frames the warrior as one who governs and guards the earth with righteousness, not one who is free to kill at will.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrīla Baladeva
And the freedom from sin is argued, not merely asserted. Several commentators compare battle to scripturally permitted sacrifice and reason that a general prohibition against harm is overridden only by a specific lawful sanction, and that the act here has the character of protection rather than ruin. The claim is narrow and conditioned, the opposite of a blank license: it holds only where the act stays inside dharma's bounds.
Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika · Śrīla Baladeva
Contemplation
One commentator turns the verse into a steadying word for the moment of crisis. He pictures Krishna pressing Arjuna: why not weigh the matter properly even now, why get obsessed with these thoughts and grow remiss about the one course that is actually yours to walk? Even if the worst should happen, he says, even if calamity falls or the whole world were suddenly deluged, you still should not abandon your own duty. The warning is gentle but firm: pity indulged at the very edge of battle will not save you. He gives a homely image. The cow's milk that is ordinarily food becomes poison if forced on a patient for whom it is forbidden; rightly meant compassion, offered at the wrong moment and in the wrong place, can harm. And he gives the encouraging side too: doing one's own duty properly is like walking a straight, level road or carrying a lamp in the dark, no stumbling, no obstruction, with one's true aims quietly fulfilled along the way. The contemplative point for any reader is to ask, in one's own hour of confusion, what the work truly set before me here is, and to do it cleanly, without malice and without letting a misplaced softness pull me from it.
Sit with this · Sant Jñāneśvar
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, tap a name in The seating.