अर्जुन उवाच ।
कथं भीष्ममहं सङ्ख्ये द्रोणं च मधुसूदन ।
इषुभि: प्रतियोत्स्यामि पूजार्हावरिसूदन ॥ २.४ ॥
Summary Translation:
Arjuna said: O killer of Madhu, O killer of enemies, how can I counter-attack with arrows in battle men like Bhishma and Drona, who are worthy of my worship?
In response to Krishna's sharp rebuke, Arjuna tries to justify his position again, but this time his tone is more pleading than argumentative. He addresses Krishna as 'Madhusudana' (killer of the Madhu demon) and 'Arisudana' (killer of enemies), subtly implying a contradiction: You are a killer of demons and enemies, but how can you ask me to be a killer of my worshipable elders? He names Bhishma, his grandfather who raised him, and Drona, his teacher who gave him the very skill of archery he is now asked to use against them. Arjuna uses the word 'katham' (how) to express his moral impossibility. For him, the act of shooting 'ishubhih' (arrows) at those who are 'puja-arhau' (worthy of worship) is a spiritual and ethical paradox. He is literally asking how one can turn the instrument of one's education against the educator.
The detailed analysis of 'Pratiyotsyami' (to fight back/counter-attack) shows Arjuna's internal conflict. In Vedic culture, elders and teachers are seen as 'Devarupa' (forms of the divine). To strike them is not just a crime, but a sacrilege. Arjuna is highlighting the 'Crisis of Hierarchy.' He is caught between two 'Dharmas': his 'Kula-dharma' (duty to family/elders) and his 'Kshatriya-dharma' (duty to fight for justice). Arjuna feels that if he kills them, his victory will be stained with the blood of his gurus. This verse shows the common human dilemma of 'Conflicting Loyalties.' We often know what is objectively right, but our personal gratitude and emotional bonds make the right action feel wrong. Arjuna’s mention of 'Sankhye' (in the battlefield) reminds us that this is not a debate, but a practical moment of life and death. He is projecting a sense of moral superiority, suggesting that his refusal to fight is based on 'Shraddha' (faith and respect) for his elders, while Krishna is seemingly asking him to ignore these sacred bonds.
Philosophically, Shloka 2.4 explores the tension between 'Vyakti-Gata Dharma' (personal/relative ethics) and 'Samasti-Gata Dharma' (universal/absolute righteousness). , Bhishma and Drona are 'Puja-arhau' (worthy of worship) in a social and familial context. However, in the context of the cosmic struggle between 'Dharma' and 'Adharma,' they have sided with 'Adharma' (the Kauravas). Philosophically, Arjuna is failing to see the 'Upadhi' (limitation) of the person. He is seeing the Grandfather and the Teacher, but not the Soldier of Evil. In 'Advaita' philosophy, the soul is beyond these roles. , by siding with the unrighteous, even a Guru loses his 'Pujyata' (worshipability) in that specific context.
The framework of 'Arisudana' (killer of enemies) is used by Arjuna as a 'Kutarka' (false logic). He is challenging Krishna: If you kill enemies, kill these enemies yourself; why involve me in the sin of killing my elders? Philosophically, this represents the 'Duality of the Mind.' The mind always finds 'righteous' reasons to avoid difficult duties. , 'Dharma' is a complex hierarchy. When 'Samanya Dharma' (be nice to teachers) conflicts with 'Vishesha Dharma' (protect society from tyranny), the latter must prevail. Arjuna is stuck in 'Samanya Dharma.' This verse highlights the 'Theory of Gratitude.' Is gratitude toward an individual higher than responsibility toward Truth? Krishna will later prove that the highest form of respect for a teacher is to uphold the 'Dharma' they taught, even if it means fighting them. From a religious perspective, this shloka illustrates that the 'Guru-shishya' relationship is meant to lead to God; if the relationship becomes an obstacle to God's command, it has lost its purpose. Arjuna’s 'Katham' (how) is the final cry of the individual ego trying to hold onto its social identity before the 'Atmic' truth dissolves it.