तस्यात्मनोऽर्धं पत्न्यास्ते नान्वगाद्वीरसूः कृपी ॥४५॥
sa eá¹£a bhagavÄn droṇaḥ
prajÄ-rÅ«peṇa vartate
tasyÄtmano 'rdhaá¹ patny Äste
nÄnvagÄd vÄ«rasūḥ ká¹›pÄ«
1 times this text was mentioned in purports to other texts: LSB(1)
saḥ - he; eá¹£aḥ - certainly; bhagavÄn - lord; droṇaḥ - DroṇÄcÄrya; prajÄ-rÅ«peṇa - in the form of his son AÅ›vatthÄmÄ; vartate - is existing; tasya - his; Ätmanaḥ - of the body; ardham - half; patnÄ« - wife; Äste - living; na - not; anvagÄt - undertook; vÄ«rasūḥ - having the son present; ká¹›pÄ« - the sister of Ká¹›pÄcÄrya.
He [DroṇÄcÄrya] is certainly still existing, being represented by his son. His wife Ká¹›pÄ« did not undergo a satÄ« with him because she had a son.
The wife of DroṇÄcÄrya, Ká¹›pÄ«, is the sister of Ká¹›pÄcÄrya. A devoted wife, who is according to revealed scripture the better half of her husband, is justified in embracing voluntary death along with her husband if she is without issue. But in the case of the wife of DroṇÄcÄrya, she did not undergo such a trial because she had her son, the representative of her husband. A widow is a widow only in name if there is a son of her husband existing. So in either case AÅ›vatthÄmÄ was the representative of DroṇÄcÄrya, and therefore killing AÅ›vatthÄmÄ would be like killing DroṇÄcÄrya. That was the argument of DraupadÄ« against the killing of AÅ›vatthÄmÄ.
