Shloka 5
Sankhya Yoga — Sankhya Yoga
गुरूनहत्वा हि महानुभावान् श्रेयो भोक्तुं भैक्ष्यमपीह लोके । हत्वार्थकामांस्तु गुरूनिहैव भुञ्जीय भोगान् रुधिरप्रदिग्धान् ॥ २.५ ॥
gurūn ahatvā hi mahānubhāvān śreyo bhoktuṃ bhaikṣyam apīha loke | hatvārthakāmāṃs tu gurūn ihaiva bhuñjīya bhogān rudhira-pradigdhān || 2.5 ||
Di dunia ini, lebih baik hidup dengan sedekah daripada membunuh para guru yang mulia. Kerana sekalipun setelah membunuh para guru demi harta dan pemuasan nafsu kita memperoleh kemenangan, segala kenikmatan yang dinikmati di sini akan ternoda—berlumur darah dan tercemar oleh dosa.
Arjuna says it would be better to live by alms in this world than to oppose and defeat revered teachers; even if victory is gained, the enjoyments would be morally tainted due to the act against them.
Arjuna states: ‘Not harming these venerable teachers, it is preferable to live even by begging here; but if one were to prevail against teachers who seek wealth and power, one would enjoy pleasures here that are ethically compromised.’
Most editions read a line implying ‘pleasures stained with blood’; academic renderings often soften this as ‘ethically tainted’ to reflect the verse’s focus on moral consequence rather than graphic description. Minor sandhi/compound variations occur across recensions, but the sense is stable.
FAQs
The verse reflects acute moral injury and anticipatory guilt: Arjuna imagines that even success would feel corrupted, indicating a conflict between social duty and personal conscience.
Metaphysically, it sets up the later distinction between bodily outcomes and the deeper self: Arjuna’s distress is rooted in identifying value solely with worldly relations and results, which Krishna will later challenge.
It occurs at the crisis point before Krishna’s teaching begins in earnest: Arjuna frames the central problem—how to act when obligations collide with reverence, affection, and ethical restraint.
It can be read as a case study in professional or civic dilemmas where ‘winning’ may violate one’s values; it encourages evaluating not only outcomes but the integrity of means.