Gita : Ch-1. Slo-36 & 37.

Srimad Bhagavad-Gita

Chapter-1. ( Arjuna-vishada-yogam )


Slokam-36.


nihatya    dhartarastran     nah     ka     pritih    syajjanardana,


papam      evasrayed     asman       hatvaitan     atatayinah.  



janardana   dhartarastran   nihatya    =   hey   krishna!    after   killing   kauravas;

nah    ka   prtih   sayat   =   what   happiness  we   get;

atatayinah (api)   =   even  they   are  aggressors;

etan   hatva  asman   =   if   ( we )   kill   them,   for   us;

papam   eva   asrayet   =   sin   will   be  effect.




If it is put forth that in killing aggressors there is sin that argument can be nullified because in the Vasistha Samhita III.XI beginning: agnido garadas caiva sastra-panir it is stated that the following six types of aggressors can be slain. 


1) one who administers poison 2) one who commits arson 3) one who attacks with deadly weapons 4) one who steals ones wealth 5) one who usurps another's property 6) and one who kidnaps another's wife 


All these aggressors can immediately be slain without any sinful reaction incurred and this confirmed in Manu Samhita VIII.CCCL beginning atatayinam ayantam hanyad meaning: Without hesitation such aggressors may be slain as there is no sin in killing them. It is factual that every one of these six aggressions has been previously perpetrated by Duryodhana and his brothers, so all of them certainly should be slain. To answer this Arjuna replies that it would be sinful to kill friends, relatives and superiors. 


His reasoning is because the killing of aggressors is found in the moral codes of Niti sastra whereas in Dharma sastra it is stated that one should not cause harm to any living creature. Since Dharma sastra is superior to Niti sastra the killing of revered elders such as Drona, Bhishma and others can only be the cause of sin. Without the elders and the relatives the enjoyment of sovereignty will not be palatable rather will only result in remorse. By Arjuna addressing Lord Krishna as Madhava the controller of all wealth and opulence, Arjuna's intention is to ask why the Lord of Sri the goddess of fortune would encourage him to fight a battle that will be full of gore and death, devoid of all wealth and opulence. 


It could possibly be accepted what Arjuna has stated regarding others on the battlefield; but for the wicked sons of Dhritarastra led by Duryodhana who have tried to harm the Pandavas in various ways should be slain immediately. In Vedic scriptures six aggressors may be rightfully slain at anytime. One who administers poison, one who commits arson, one who attacks with deadly weapons, one who steals wealth, one who usurps property and one who kidnaps a wife. The sons of Dhritarastra have committed these heinous acts of aggression against the Pandavas. The word atatayinah meaning aggressors can also be applied as criminals and such criminals committing any of the six aggressions can be rightfully slain. So the sons of Dhritarastra should be slain without any hesitation or compunction; but in rebuttal Arjuna is saying that sin would be accrued and hell would be the punishment as a result of slaying one's relatives. Their is no reward in this world or the next for such an action; therefore it would be improper to execute this. The word hi means certainly and this augments this assertion. By addressing Lord Krishna with the vocative Madhava meaning the husband of the goddess of fortune indicates that as the husband He is the progenitor of the family not the destroyer of the family and that Arjuna should also not act contrarily to this. 




Slokam-37.



Tasmannarha     vayam     hantum      dhartarastran       svabandhavan,



Svajanam     hi      katham      hatva     sukhinah      syama       madhava.



tasmat   vayam   svabandhavan   =   therefore   we,   our   own   relaives;

dhartarastran    hantum   na   arha   =  not  supposed   to   kill;

madhava!   =   hey   krishna!

katham   sukhinah   syama   =   how   we  become   happy.



If the question arises that although it is advisable for the Pandavas to engage in battle being challenged by their enemies the Kauravas because it is well known that a ksatriya can never decline a challenge to fight or to gamble. To answer this Arjuna speaks the verse beginning: yadyapy ete na pasyanti and the verse beginning katham na jneyam asmabhih. The reason for the Kauravas to be engaged in war is out of greed. Whereas we not having this desire of greed therefore have no desire for battle. One is engaged in karmic activities to fulfil ones desires; but only if no negativity is created and the action results in total happiness can it be considered righteousness. 


It is also described in the codes of warfare that a Syen Yaga is prescribed for killing of ones enemies. Although it is true because the result of it will not give happiness to the family members of the deceased, it is unreasonable for us to be engaged in this battle. On the other hand the tradition of accepting a challenge by ksatriyas is applicable when there is no probability of destruction of the dynasty. Arjuna again addresses Lord Krishna again as Janardana, He who always naturally protects His devotees, Arjuna is intimating that since Lord Krishna is the Supreme Lord and has appeared for the express purpose of removing all those opposed to righteousness on the Earth, He can just by His will destroy all the enemies effortlessly Himself.


Why are they trying to kill the Pandavas in the first place might now be asked? In this verse Arjuna is stating that the Kauravas their hearts full of greed, devoid of piety see no fault and perceive no sinful reaction in the slaying of family members and hence they act in ignorance. Now in support of his reason for not fighting Arjuna states that the Pandavas are not like the Kauravas because of knowing fully the sinful reaction of slaying kinsman. So why should they engage in this abominable act. Being a devotee of the Supreme Lord Krishna who is the propounder of dharma or righteousness, Arjuna addresses him by the vocative Janardana meaning as the remover of his devotees ignorance; why should they not refrain themselves from such ignorance being cognizant of the implications of unrighteousness? 


It may be argued to Arjuna that if he does not slay his enemies due to feeling compassion for them, then they out of greed for power they will surely slay him; therefore it would be better for him to slay them and enjoy sovereignty. This is answered in a verse and a half beginning with: I do not like etc. Even if they kill us I do not like to kill them even for attaining the sovereignty of all the three worlds much less for gaining only this earth. 


The Vedic scriptures declare that those who commit the following six types of crimes being : arson, poisoning, assaulting with weapons, stealing ones wealth, usurping ones land or kidnapping one's wife are aggressors and Duryodhana and the Kauravas were definitely aggressors having committed all six offences against the Pandavas beginning with arson. The slaying of aggressors is justifiable and the Vedic scriptures state that one should slay an aggressor coming with the intention of committing a criminal act without hesitation and that the slayer of such an aggressor incurs no sin whatsoever. This is being answered by the verse and a half beginning with: sin alone etc. The text which states one should kill belongs to what is called an Artha Sastra which is a scripture dealing with the rules and laws regarding wealth. Artha Sastra is considered less authoritative than Dharma Sastra which are scriptures dealing with righteousness. Dharma Sastra is superior to Artha Sastra. As it is stated by the sage Yagnavalkya: when two scriptures differ the one whose conclusion is the most reasonable and most logical is to be considered superior. This is the understanding. Therefore by the slaying of preceptors etc. although they are aggressors, Arjuna is stating that sin shall be incurred because such slaying is unwarranted and unrighteous. There can be no happiness from this. This is being given by: How can we adopt this course of action? 


Although Duryodhana and the Kauravas being deprived of all discrimination are determined to fight; why should we who are not deprived of discrimination become degraded as well by such sinfulness? We should resolve not to engage in this battle.    


Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dratarashtran  and our friends. What should we gain, O Krishna husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?


If it is put forth that in killing aggressors there is sin that argument can be nullified because in the Vasistha Samhita III.XI beginning: agnido garadas caiva sastra-panir it is stated that the following six types of aggressors can be slain. 


1) one who administers poison 2) one who commits arson 3) one who attacks with deadly weapons 4) one who steals ones wealth 5) one who usurps another's property 6) and one who kidnaps another's wife 


All these aggressors can immediately be slain without any sinful reaction incurred and this confirmed in Manu Samhita VIII.CCCL beginning atatayinam ayantam hanyad meaning: Without hesitation such aggressors may be slain as there is no sin in killing them. 


It is factual that every one of these six aggressions has been previously perpetrated by Duryodhana and his brothers, so all of them certainly should be slain. To answer this Arjuna replies that it would be sinful to kill friends, relatives and superiors. 


His reasoning is because the killing of aggressors is found in the moral codes of Niti sastra whereas in Dharma sastra it is stated that one should not cause harm to any living creature. Since Dharma sastra is superior to Niti sastra the killing of revered elders such as Drona, Bhishma and others can only be the cause of sin. 


Without the elders and the relatives the enjoyment of sovereignty will not be palatable rather will only result in remorse. By Arjuna addressing Lord Krishna as Madhava the controller of all wealth and opulence, Arjuna's intention is to ask why the Lord of Sri the goddess of fortune would encourage him to fight a battle that will be full of gore and death, devoid of all wealth and opulence. 



It could possibly be accepted what Arjuna has stated regarding others on the battlefield; but for the wicked sons of Dhritarastra led by Duryodhana who have tried to harm the Pandavas in various ways should be slain immediately. In Vedic scriptures six aggressors may be rightfully slain at anytime. 


One who administers poison, one who commits arson, one who attacks with deadly weapons, one who steals wealth, one who usurps property and one who kidnaps a wife. The sons of Dhritarastra have committed these heinous acts of aggression against the Pandavas. The word atatayinah meaning aggressors can also be applied as criminals and such criminals committing any of the six aggressions can be rightfully slain. 


So the sons of Dhritarastra should be slain without any hesitation or compunction; but in rebuttal Arjuna is saying that sin would be accrued and hell would be the punishment as a result of slaying one's relatives. Their is no reward in this world or the next for such an action; therefore it would be improper to execute this. 


The word hi means certainly and this augments this assertion. By addressing Lord Krishna with the vocative Madhava meaning the husband of the goddess of fortune indicates that as the husband He is the progenitor of the family not the destroyer of the family and that Arjuna should also not act contrarily to this. 


According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: 1) a poison giver, 2) one who sets fire to the house, 3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, 4) one who plunders riches, 5) one who occupies another's land, and 6) one who kidnaps a wife. 


Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors. Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting for any ordinary man, but Arjuna was not an ordinary person. He was saintly by character, and therefore he wanted to deal with them in saintliness. 


This kind of saintliness, however, is not for a Kshatriya. Although a responsible man in the administration of a state is required to be saintly, he should not be cowardly. 


For example, Lord Rama was so saintly that people were anxious to live in His kingdom, (Rama-Rajyam), but Lord Rama never showed any cowardice. Ravana was an aggressor against Rama because he kidnapped Rāma's wife, Sita, but Lord Rama gave him sufficient lessons, unparalleled in the history of the world. 


In Arjuna's case, however, one should consider the special type of aggressors, namely his own grandfather, own teacher, friends, sons, grandsons, etc. Because of them, Arjuna thought that he should not take the severe steps necessary against ordinary aggressors. 


Besides that, saintly persons are advised to forgive. Such injunctions for saintly persons are more important than any political emergency. Arjuna considered that rather than kill his own kinsmen for political reasons, it would be better to forgive them on grounds of religion and saintly behavior. 


He did not, therefore, consider such killing profitable simply for the matter of temporary bodily happiness. After all, kingdoms and pleasures derived therefrom are not permanent, so why should he risk his life and eternal salvation by killing his own kinsmen? 


Arjuna's addressing of Krishna as "Madhava," or the husband of the goddess of fortune, is also significant in this connection. He wanted to point out to Krishna that, as husband of the goddess of fortune, He should not have to induce Arjuna to take up a matter which would ultimately bring about misfortune. Krishna, however, never brings misfortune to anyone, to say nothing of His devotees.

To be continued ...