Shloka 3
Adhyaya 6 — Balarama’s Dilemma, Drunken Wanderings in Revata’s Grove, and the Slaying of the Suta
जामातरं तथा शिष्यं घातयिष्ये नरेश्वरम् । तस्मान्न पार्थं यास्यामि नापि दुर्योधनं नृपम् ॥
jāmātaraṃ tathā śiṣyaṃ ghātayiṣye nareśvaram / tasmān na pārthaṃ yāsyāmi nāpi duryodhanaṃ nṛpam
“Farei com que o rei—que é ao mesmo tempo genro e discípulo—seja morto. Portanto, não irei a Pārtha (Arjuna), nem ao rei Duryodhana.”
{ "primaryRasa": "raudra", "secondaryRasa": "shanta", "rasaIntensity": 0, "emotionalArcPosition": "", "moodDescriptors": [] }
FAQs
The verse dramatizes a collapse of dharmic restraints: even relationships that traditionally command protection—son-in-law ties and the sanctity of the teacher–disciple bond—are overridden by a violent resolve. The refusal to side with either Pārtha (Arjuna) or Duryodhana suggests a posture of withdrawal from a polarized conflict, but it is paired with an intention to commit grave wrongdoing, highlighting that ‘neutrality’ is not inherently virtuous if grounded in adharma.
This verse is best classified under Ākhyāna (narrative episode) rather than the core pancalakṣaṇa categories (sarga, pratisarga, vaṃśa, manvantara, vaṃśānucarita). It supports vaṃśānucarita/itihāsa-echo material only indirectly by invoking Mahābhārata figures (Arjuna, Duryodhana) as part of a moral-narrative exemplar.
On a symbolic reading, ‘son-in-law’ and ‘disciple’ represent bonds of reciprocity and transmission (family continuity and knowledge lineage). The intent to destroy the ‘king’ who embodies both indicates a willful severing of continuity—social, ethical, and spiritual. The refusal to go to either rival camp can signify inner dissociation from dualities, but here it is portrayed in a tamasic mode: detachment without discernment, leading to destructive action.