Bhagawad Gita - Ch.1 - Verses 31-38

[Guest guest]

Greetings Advaitins:

 

During this week, we had some lively discussions regarding the question: "Is

Arjuna a coward?" Murthyji raised this question and argued why Arjuna is not

a coward. His reasoning was quite compelling and he got support from several

others including Devendraji, and Harshaji. Other participants on this debated

include Swamini Saradapriyanandaji, Anandji, Ramji, Sundarji, Madhavaji and

Profvk. Profvk gave a beautifuly analogy, the character of Bharatha from

Ramayana. As usual, his observations were quite profound and he reminded us

that we should constantly watch for our momentary lapses in conducting

duties.

 

Dr. Radhakrishnan describes the context of the dialog between Arjuna and

Krishna: "The distress of Arjuna is a dramatization of a perpetually recurring

predicament. Man on the threshold of higher life, feels disappointed with the

glamour of the world and yet illusions cling to him and he cherishes them. He

forgets his divine ancestry and becomes attached to his personality and is

agitated by the conflicting forces of the world. Before he wakes up to the

world of spirit and accepts the obligations imposed by it, he has to fight the

enemies of selfishness and stupidity, and overcome the dark ignorance of his

self-centered ego. It is the evolution of the human soul that is portrayed

here. There are no limits of time and space to it. The fight takes place

every moment in the soul of man," (The Bhagavad Gita, S.Radhakrishnan,

Published by Blackie & Son Publisheres Pvt. Ltd. Bombay, India, page 95,

second paragraph )

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

==========================================================

Discussion on Bhagawad Gita - Ch.1 - Verses 31-38 compiled from Bhagavdgita -

Multimedia CD (permission is obtained from the publisher for conducting Gita

Sang Discussion)

==========================================================Omens portend either

good or evil. The word `Nimittani' in the present verse refers to such omens.

An untimely eclipse, shaking of the earth and shooting of stars in the sky all

these inauspicious omens gave an indication to Arjuna's mind that the result

of this War would not be happy. That is why he pointed out that, in his

opinion, it appeared better not to engage in that fight.When Arjuna said that

he did not see any good in killing his kith and kin in battle, he meant that

no form of good could be expected from such killing of near relations and

friends. For, firstly, doing to death of relations by violence was bound to

lead to repentance, which would ever after continue to corrode the mind.

Secondly, in their absence life would be quite miserable. And, thirdly, sin

would accrue from such killing. Thus it was beneficial neither from the point

of view of this world, nor from that of the next. Therefore, Arjuna held that

it was not at all advisable to start the War.

 

Drawing a faithful picture of the state of his mind, Arjuna said that victory,

kingdom and earthly pleasures which he would gain by killing those near and

dear ones were not at all wanted by him. He clearly visualized that the

slaughter of those relations would bring him in this world as well as in the

next nothing but mental agony and torture. Then, what for should he fight, why

should he put them to death ? What should he do with a kingdom and pleasures

obtained by such dreadful means ? He put it as his definite opinion that after

killing them, life would be of no use to him whatsoever.

 

Here Arjuna says that rulership of a kingdom and all the pleasures and

enjoyments that follow in the wake of the possession of such authority, were

not necessary for his use at all. He knew it well that such pleasures were

neither permanent, nor the possessions themselves everlasting. If he had

craved for a kingdom, it was only for those brothers, friends and relations;

but now he observed that they had all assembled on the battle-field ready to

sacrifice their lives. Of what use would be the kingdom, luxuries and

pleasures, if they all departed from the earth by mutual slaughter ?

Therefore, from any point of view whatsoever, it was undesirable to start the

War.

Relations like teachers, grand-uncles and uncle's etc, had already been

mentioned in a previous verse. Here, referring to two other relations, viz.,

`wife's brothers' like Dhrstadyumna, Sikhandi and Suratha etc, and other

relations' like Jayadratha etc, Arjuna wanted to say that in this world people

exert to gain wealth and objects of enjoyment for the sake of their relations

only, who were the centers of their affection. When all such relations would

be killed in battle, what purpose would be served by kingship, and other

objects of enjoyment ? Such a kingdom, and such pleasures, would be nothing

but sources of extreme misery and distress.

 

By using the words `Ghnatah' and `Api' in the above verse, Arjuna indicates

that apart from the fighters on his own side, who would in no case act in

opposition to him, even those of his relations who were posted in the opposite

ranks, would very likely give up their desire to kill him when he would desist

from the fight. For they came to oppose him in battle only with the motive of

keeping the kingdom under their possession. When refraining from fight, he

would himself give up all claim to the kingdom there would remain no cause for

them to think of killing him. But if in spite of this, any fighter in the

rival army thought of making an attempt on Arjuna's life, Arjuna for his part

would not kill him.

 

Arjuna here says that the slaughter of Dhrtarastra's sons and their

associates in the opposite army would bring no good, either in this world or

in the next; when thus it would fail to bring about what was desired; it could

never bring delight or joy in any shape or form. Therefore, he did not want to

kill them from any point of view.

Lord Manu says in clear terms, in his famous Code (VIII. 350-51). "An

attacking desperado must be killed without hesitation. No sin accrues to a

slayer, when he slays a desperado."*

As for a desperado, the Vasistha-Smrti defines him in the following words

(Vide III. 19):- "Criminals guilty of the following six forms of crime are

classed as desperadoes:-setting fire to a house; administration of poison;

attempt to attack with weapon in hand; robbing of wealth; dispossessing a

rightful owner of his land; abduction of a woman."

In Duryodhana and his friends all these marks of desperadoes could be found in

their entirety. By setting fire to the house made of lac, they had attempted

on the life of the Pandavas; Bhimasena had been given poison, with his food;

and now they came prepared, weapon in hand, to kill the Pandavas in battle. In

the game of dice, they had defrauded the Pandavas of all their wealth and even

of their kingdom. By dragging Draupadi to the open Court they had subjected

her to a barbarous form of ignominy, and Jayadratha had even tried to abduct

her. Under these circumstances, the idea of sin accruing from killing

Duryodhana and his friends ought not to have cowed Arjuna's mind. But there is

a statement in another Smrti text to the following effect: "He who destroys

his own race and family is the greatest sinner."

Regarding this injunction to be of much greater weight, and stronger, than a

common injunction, Arjuna gave expression to these ideas. He goes on

upholding, and elucidating, this stand-point up to the very end of this

chapter.

 

By using the word `Tasmat' (therefore) at the beginning of the verse, Arjuna

meant to say that looking to the sad mental and physical plight to which he

had been reduced and the reasons put forward by him against entering upon the

War, and because, again, of the other thoughts which were surging within his

mind, he was definitely of opinion that it would be altogether unbecoming on

the part of the Pandavas to kill Duryodhana and other relations in the Kaurava

army. He held that there was not the slightest possibility of the Pandavas

obtaining any form of happiness, in this world or the next, by killing these

near ones. Therefore, he said he did not want to fight.

 

Here Arjuna means to say that such action on the part of Duryodhana and his

friends was no doubt most reprehensible, but it was not unnatural for them;

for their inordinate greed had wholly destroyed their power of discrimination

between good and evil. Therefore, they could not see the great evil and

disaster that would inevitably follow the destruction of all members of the

race, nor could they realize what a dreadful sin it was to look upon relations

and friends as enemies and fight with them for mutual slaughter. Arjuna and

his brothers, however, were not blinded by greed; they could clearly see what

evil and disaster would ensue from the destruction of the family and race.

Therefore, knowingly, and with their eyes wide open, why should they be guilty

of such an outrageous sin! They should, therefore, considering the evil nature

of the act, withdraw themselves from the fight.