Vyāsadeva does not say that kṛṣṇa uvāca. If, if he would have said "Kṛṣṇa," then people would have misunderstood. He's directly speaking, bhagavān uvāca, "the Supreme Personality of Godhead." So anyone who is impersonalist, how he can understand Bhagavad-gītā? Bhagavān means person. Bhagavān is not imperson. The Absolute Truth is manifested in three features: Brahman, Paramātmā, Bhagavān. Brahman is the beginning, impersonal. Sarvaṁ idaṁ khalu brahma. Because . . . just like fire. Fire is burning somewhere, but its heat and light is impersonal. Suppose here is big fire. Just like we got fireplace. That is in one corner. But the whole room you are feeling heat. That heat is impersonal. But the fireplace, where there is blazing fire, that is personal.
So impersonal conception is the offshoot of the person. That will be explained in the Thirteenth Chapter: mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam (BG 9.4). Kṛṣṇa says that, "Everyone . . . everywhere I am spread. I exist everywhere." How does He exist? By His energy. That energy is impersonal. But the Supreme Person, He's not impersonal. He's person. Therefore it is said, śrī-bhagavān uvāca. Bhagavān means who is full with six kinds of opulence, aiśvarya: the richest, the most famous, the most learned, the most beautiful, the most strong and the most renouncer. He's Bhagavān.
So Bhagavān is the ultimate understanding of the Absolute Truth. Just like when you feel temperature . . . just like we feel temperature from the sunshine, heat. And light. The sun is giving heat and light. Everyone can . . . we enjoy the light and heat. But if you trace wherefrom this heat and light is coming, then you go to the sun planet. That is localized. That is not impersonal. And again, if you enter into the sun planet, then you will see the sun-god, Vivasvan. So we should not conclude final simply by heat and light. So Brahman understanding, impersonal understanding of the Absolute Truth, is imperfect understanding, partial understanding. It is not full understanding. Full understanding is Bhagavān. Therefore it is stated here, śrī-bhagavān uvāca. There cannot be any mistake. That is final.
So Bhagavān is criticizing. Arjuna became a very good man: "Why shall I . . .? Oh, I cannot kill my kinsmen." From material point of view, people will very much appreciate, "Oh, here is Arjuna. He's so nice, nonviolent. He is foregoing his claim. He has given up his astra, bow and arrows. He's no, no longer fighting. He has decided not to fight with kinsmen, kill his own men." So from material point of view, Arjuna is supposed to be very, very good man. But the Supreme Person, Kṛṣṇa, what does He say? Anārya-juṣṭam: "You rascal, you are speaking like anārya." He'll say "rascal" later on. He posed himself to be very good man, but when he comes to the test of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He refuses to accept him as a good man. He's saying that, "You are anārya."
There are two kinds of men: anārya and ārya. Āryan. Āryan means advanced in knowledge. He's called Āryan. And anārya means uncivilized. So immediately He rebukes him, anārya-juṣṭam: "You are talking just like non-Āryan, uncivilized person." People are very much, nowadays, eager how to stop war. But Kṛṣṇa says . . . (break) . . . at any case is not required. There is necessity of war. Just like He's trying to convince Arjuna. Our war means . . . according to Vedic civilization, that is dharma-yuddha, religious fight. When the actual need is there to fight, we must fight. Not that when there is need of fight, one becomes nonviolent.
Just like yesterday in the evening, when we were talking with Dr. Schumacher, so they were supporting that "Why should you kill any animal who is coming to . . . if you are determined not to kill . . ." We were talking of not killing, that why should you kill one animal who is coming to attack? No. You must kill. That is necessity. You should not go to the forest to find out some living entities, living beings, to kill. That is not your business. That is hiṁsa. But if a tiger comes to attack you, you must kill. That is self-defense. And that is not hiṁsa.