Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 1, Verse 35: Arjuna to Krishna — Arjuna-Viṣāda-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Arjuna speaks to the Destroyer of Madhu (Madhusūdana): even as these men come forward ready to kill, the desire to slay them does not arise in him. The question is stark — not even sovereignty of the three worlds (trailokya-rājya) could purchase such action; what then of this mere earth (mahī)? That Arjuna addresses Kṛṣṇa as 'Madhusūdana' — slayer of the demon Madhu — carries an implicit challenge: if the Lord himself slays when adharma demands it, why does Arjuna now shrink? The Advaitin notes this tension but must await Kṛṣṇa's reply; here the text records only aversion rooted in moha, the confusion that mistakes bodily relationships for the Self.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Rāmānuja's commentary frames Arjuna as 'mahāmanāḥ' — great-souled, deeply compassionate, a 'dīrghabandhu' (far-sighted friend to all). Even after having been repeatedly and cruelly deceived — burned in the house of lac (jatugṛha), robbed of kingdom — Arjuna, sustained by the Supreme Person (paramapuruṣa-sahāya), looks upon those arrayed against him and is overwhelmed by bandhu-sneha (kinship-love) and paramā kṛpā (supreme compassion). The sweat pouring from every limb (atimātra-svinna-sarva-gātra) is the body's testimony to this internal war between dharma and adharma-fear. He lets his bow fall and sinks into the chariot, his mind torn apart by the grief of imminent separation from kin (bandhu-viśleṣa-janita-śoka-saṃvigna-mānasa). For Viśiṣṭādvaita, this is not mere weakness — it is the natural anguish of a bhakta who has not yet understood that service to Bhagavān requires acting through and not against relationships consecrated by Him.

• Madhvadvaita

  *Etān na hantum icchāmi ghnato 'pi madhusūdana | api trailokya-rājyasya hetoḥ kiṃ nu mahī-kṛte* — Arjuna addresses Kṛṣṇa as *Madhusūdana* (slayer of Madhu), the very name marking the Lord's supremacy as *svatantra* (the independently real, self-sufficient), yet in the same breath voices *icchāmi* — his own *I will* — as the governing force. The *paratantra* (eternally dependent) *jīva* (the individual self) possesses no will that stands independently of Hari's; when Arjuna says *na hantum icchāmi*, 'I do not wish to kill', even under attack (*ghnato 'pi*), he places his private aversion above the function Hari has assigned him. The ascending scale — *trailokya-rājyasya* (sovereignty of the three worlds) down to *mahī-kṛte* (for the sake of mere earth) — does not ennoble the refusal; it measures the depth to which personal *icchā* has displaced *dāsya* (servanthood). *Bheda* (real distinction) between Lord and *jīva* is not negated by *bhakti* (devotion); it is the very ground on which *bhakti* as ontological subordination stands. A servant's will that overrides the master's command is not renunciation but a subtler self-assertion, and the hyperbole of the verse exposes exactly that: no prize, however vast, can justify the refusal — but neither can any personal repugnance.

  divergence: No Madhva or Jayatīrtha bhāṣya is extant for this verse; the reading proceeds directly from Dvaita *siddhānta* — *svatantra*/*paratantra* ontology, *pañca-bheda*, and *dāsya*-centred *bhakti*.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  In Vallabha's Puṣṭi-mārga, the entire battlefield drama is Kṛṣṇa's own līlā — the Lord staging the conditions under which pure, unalloyed love (śuddha-bhakti) can be demonstrated and awakened. Arjuna's refusal to fight even for trailokya-rājya is, from this angle, not weakness but an early, unripened form of utter surrender to Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet — a surrender that does not yet know itself. The grief and the trembling are the outer casing of a love so complete it cannot bear to act independently; what needs to happen is the grace (puṣṭi) by which Kṛṣṇa will transform this passive collapse into active offering. Vallabha's own commentary is not available for this verse; this rendering proceeds from Śuddhādvaita and Puṣṭi-mārga principles.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Śrīdhara frames a prior objection squarely: if Arjuna, out of compassion, will not strike these men, they — driven by kingdom-greed (rājya-lobha) — will assuredly strike him. So why not kill them first and enjoy the kingdom? Arjuna's answer, which the commentary unpacks, is an a fortiori argument: not even for the gaining of trailokya-rājya (sovereignty of all three worlds) would he wish to kill these, even as they are coming to kill him (ghnato 'pi … etān hantum na icchāmi). The phrase 'kiṃ puna mahī-mātra-prāpty-artham' — how much less, then, for the sake of gaining mere earth — drives the scale of renunciation from the cosmic to the mundane and finds it still insufficient justification for slaughter.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusūdana raises and refutes the objection that, because the Dhārtarāṣṭras are ātatāyins (aggressors of the six kinds — arsonist, poisoner, armed assailant, plunderer, usurper of land and wife), smṛti permits their killing without hesitation or sin. Against this, he reads Arjuna's declaration as invoking the hierarchy of śāstric authority: dharma-śāstra ('na hiṃsyāt' — do not harm) overrides artha-śāstra ('ātatāyinaṃ hanyāt'), as Yājñavalkya adjudicates when the two smṛtis conflict. Further, Madhusūdana offers an alternate reading of 'pāpam evāśrayet' — killing these sinners would attach sin specifically to the survivors (Arjuna's side), not to the Dhārtarāṣṭras who will in any case reap only pāpa from the act. The address 'Janārdana' (Agitator of men, at the prior verse) carries a subtle thrust: if anyone is to smite aggressors without incurring sin it is Kṛṣṇa, who destroys all at dissolution yet remains untouched by pāpa. For Madhusūdana, Arjuna's non-desire to kill is not mere sentiment but a scripturally reasoned position — though it will be superseded by Kṛṣṇa's higher synthesis.