« The Song of God—Volume 1, chapters 1-6
Arjuna’s reasons for not fighting (Bg 1.31 to 1.39)
The two previous sections described Arjuna’s reaction after seeing his friends and relatives arranged on the battlefield. Now his bewilderment takes the form of arguments. He tries to justify his unwillingness to fight using arguments based on compassion, family ties, morality, non-violence, and so on. These are reasonable arguments from a material perspective, but we can observe that they are not sufficient to solve his dilemma.
Text 31: na ca śreyo ’nupaśyāmi, hatvā sva-janam āhave
na kānkṣe vijayam kṛṣṇa, na ca rājyam sukhāni ca
I do not see how any good can come from killing my own kinsmen in this battle, nor can I, my dear Kṛṣṇa, desire any subsequent victory, kingdom or happiness.
Texts 32-35: kim no rājyena govinda, kim bhogair jīvitena vā
yeṣām arthe kānkṣitam no, rājyam bhogāḥ sukhāni ca
ta ime ’vasthitā yuddhe, prāṇāms tyaktvā dhanāni ca
ācāryāḥ pitaraḥ putrās, tathaiva ca pitāmahāḥ
mātulāḥ śvaśurāḥ pautrāḥ, śyālāḥ sambandhinas tathā
etān na hantum icchāmi, ghnato ’pi madhusūdana
api trailokya-rājyasya, hetoḥ kim nu mahī-kṛte
nihatya dhārtarāṣṭrān naḥ, kā prītiḥ syāj janārdana
O Govinda, of what avail to us are a kingdom, happiness or even life itself when all those for whom we may desire them are now arrayed on this battlefield? O Madhusūdana, when teachers, fathers, sons, grandfathers, maternal uncles, fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law and other relatives are ready to give up their lives and properties and are standing before me, why should I wish to kill them, even though they might otherwise kill me? O maintainer of all living entities, I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds, let alone this earth. What pleasure will we derive from killing the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra?
Text 36: pāpam evāśrayed asmān, hatvaitān ātatāyinaḥ
tasmān nārhā vayam hantum, dhārtarāṣṭrān sa-bāndhavān
sva-janam hi katham hatvā, sukhinaḥ syāma mādhava
Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and our friends. What should we gain, O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?
Texts 37-38: yady apy ete na paśyanti, lobhopahata-cetasaḥ
kula-kṣaya-kṛtam doṣam, mitra-drohe ca pātakam
katham na jñeyam asmābhiḥ, pāpād asmān nivartitum
kula-kṣaya-kṛtam doṣam, prapaśyadbhir janārdana
O Janārdana, although these men, their hearts overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one’s family or quarreling with friends, why should we, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?
Text 39: kula-kṣaye praṇaśyanti, kula-dharmāḥ sanātanāḥ
dharme naṣṭe kulam kṛtsnam, adharmo ’bhibhavaty uta
With the destruction of the dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in irreligion.
A person who does not feel hungry is not inclined to cook. Similarly, because Arjuna thought the fight would bring no positive results, resulting in the killing of his kinsmen, he was not inclined to fight. He understood that avoiding the battle would deprive him of a kingdom and therefore was ready to go live a life of frustration in the forest. He was also afraid of sinful reactions from killing superiors like Bhīṣma and Drona and afraid of causing the collapse of family traditions by killing the husbands of so many women, and so on.
In general, there are five reasons for Arjuna’s reluctance to fight, demonstrated in the first chapter:
1) Compassion: Although a brave warrior, Arjuna was a pious and kind soul, a pure devotee of the Lord; therefore, he felt compassion for the soldiers on the other side and the prospect of them being injured or killed.
2) Fear of personal loss: Even if Arjuna were to win the battle, how would he be able to enjoy life afterward without his friends and relatives? This feeling is based on an identification with the body and bodily connections. Based on this misunderstanding, Arjuna considered that he would be happier retiring to the forest and living a secluded life of frustration.
3) Destruction of the family traditions: If all the men died in the battle, what would happen to their families? Who would take care of the wives and educate the children? Families are the fabric of any civilized society, where moral and cultural values are transmitted to the next generation. The Vedic society of which Arjuna was part was a very sophisticated society, based on solid moral principles. If the families were destroyed, this culture would be lost, and society would fall into disarray, resulting in suffering for all.
Kṛṣṇa, however, could see deeper into the situation and had a better plan. He desired to liberate all the soldiers on the battlefield and install pious King Yudhiṣṭhira on the throne so he could protect all the people and teach the principles of dharma. Arjuna running from the battle would have the opposite effect, setting a bad example that would make people further deviate from dharma, contributing to the degradation of society he hoped to avoid.
We can see how a lack of knowledge can cause us to perform actions that end up bringing results opposite to those we desire. Kṛṣṇa, possessing perfect knowledge, had formulated a better plan, and Arjuna had only to cooperate in it.
4) Fear of karmic reactions: Ordinarily, injuring and killing people brings sinful reactions that create future suffering. What would be the benefit of gaining a kingdom if Arjuna had to suffer for many lives afterward? Would it not be better to avoid the fighting and the resulting suffering?
This sounds like a good argument, but it is also the fruit of misunderstanding, since Arjuna would incur karmic reactions not for fighting, but for refusing to fight and thus neglecting his duty. This will be explained in more detail later in the Gītā when Kṛṣṇa explains karma and akarma. Often, what superficially looks like an activity that entangles us in the cycle of karma is in reality something that liberates us, and conversely, often doing nothing causes bondage. Someone with a small child who neglected his duties and allowed the child to die could end up going to jail, precisely for doing nothing.
5) Indecision: Although previously he was determined to fight for the just cause, now Arjuna became reluctant, considering whether taking Duryodhana out of power would be worth the lives of so many people. This is a situation we frequently face in life. Such indecision comes from attachment, which covers our intelligence and prevents us from reaching correct conclusions.
The way Arjuna calls Kṛṣṇa in these different verses is also significant, revealing additional details. In text 1.32, Arjuna calls Kṛṣṇa “Govinda”, pleading with Him to satisfy his senses by helping him to avoid the fight. He thus misses the central aspect of bhakti-yoga, which is to try to satisfy the senses of the Lord through our actions, instead of engaging the Lord as an order supplier to fulfill our material desires. Kṛṣṇa wants us to be happy, but He understands that the path to true happiness is the opposite of the material sense gratification we often strive for. He thus plays the long game, trying to gradually bring us to this eternal happiness in our original position as pure souls.
In texts 1.35 and 1.38, Arjuna calls Kṛṣṇa “Janārdana”. This name has two meanings. It means “the maintainer of all living entities”, but also “the killer of the person”. Arjuna calls Kṛṣṇa Janārdana to argue that the Kurus should not be killed, arguing that “O maintainer of all living entities, I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds, let alone this earth. What pleasure will we derive from killing the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra?” At the same time, by calling Kṛṣṇa Janārdana, he indirectly argues that if they had to be killed at all to fulfill Kṛṣṇa’s mission of removing the burden of the Earth, or for any other purpose, it would be better for Kṛṣṇa to kill them Himself, just like He had already killed numerous demons before. In this way, Arjuna reinforced his desire not to take part in the battle.
In verse 36, Arjuna addresses Kṛṣṇa as “Mādhava”, the husband of the goddess of fortune, indirectly questioning why He desired to engage him in this battle that, by his calculation, would bring only misfortune.
Main points in the purports of Śrīla Prabhupāda:
“I do not see how any good can come from killing my own kinsmen in this battle, nor can I, my dear Kṛṣṇa, desire any subsequent victory, kingdom or happiness.”
a) Attraction to bodily connections and the hope of material happiness appear due to a lack of knowledge about our relationship with Kṛṣṇa.
b) Due to lamentation, Arjuna did not even properly consider material happiness. As a kṣatriya, fighting in the battle would make him eligible to be elevated to the sun, where he would enjoy great happiness. Due to attachment, however, he was considering avoiding the fight, which would not bring him any good results.
c) Not fighting in the war would deprive Arjuna of all means of subsistence. His only option afterward would be begging or living a life of frustration in the forest.
“O Govinda, of what avail to us are a kingdom, happiness or even life itself when all those for whom we may desire them are now arrayed on this battlefield? O Madhusūdana, when teachers, fathers, sons, grandfathers, maternal uncles, fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law and other relatives are ready to give up their lives and properties and are standing before me, why should I wish to kill them, even though they might otherwise kill me? O maintainer of all living entities, I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds, let alone this earth. What pleasure will we derive from killing the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra?”
a) Arjuna addresses Kṛṣṇa as Govinda, expecting that He would satisfy his material senses by giving some easy solution to the problem. This illustrates the general tendency to use God as an order supplier. This, however, is the wrong approach. When one tries to satisfy the senses of the Lord, instead of one’s own senses, then by His grace, all desires are satisfied.
b) Arjuna’s doubt appeared due to a mixture of natural compassion and material calculation of gain and loss based on attachment. Transcendental life is different, based on satisfying the desires of Kṛṣṇa.
c) Arjuna desired that if there was at all a need to kill his relatives, Kṛṣṇa would kill them personally instead of engaging him. Kṛṣṇa, however, had already killed them before the battle, and Arjuna was just going to be an instrument for His will.
d) As a devotee of the Lord, Arjuna was prepared to forgive the wrongdoing of his cousins, but the Lord had already made a plan to kill all of them due to their offenses against the Pāṇḍavas. A devotee may not want to retaliate against a wrongdoer, but the Lord does not tolerate any mischief against His devotees.
“Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and our friends. What should we gain, O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?”
a) Six types of aggressors may be killed without fear of sinful reactions, this fits a common man. Arjuna, however, as a pure devotee, wanted to deal with them in saintliness. His attitude, however, was not fit for a kṣatriya, as can be seen from the example of Lord Rāma, who, although fulfilling the highest standard of saintliness, didn’t fail to punish Rāvaṇa.
b) A kṣatriya should be saintly, but at the same time, he should not act cowardly and fail to punish an aggressor.
c) Arjuna, however, considered that this principle didn’t apply to his case, because Bhīṣma, Droṇa, and other seniors were not common aggressors, but seniors and exalted personalities who should be forgiven on the basis of religious principles. Apart from that, why would he risk his life and salvation for some temporary material gain?
d) He addresses Kṛṣṇa as Mādhava, arguing that He should not engage him in a fight that, in his calculation, would bring him misfortune.
“O Janārdana, although these men, their hearts overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one’s family or quarreling with friends, why should we, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?”
a) Arjuna had been challenged to fight by the party of Duryodhana, and ordinarily a kṣatriya is bound to fight when defied. However, an obligation is binding when the effect is good. In this case, Arjuna considered that the result would be unfavorable and thus considered it best to neglect such a duty and not fight.
“With the destruction of the dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in irreligion.”
a) Arjuna considered that such a fratricidal war would cause the destruction of the Kuru dynasty. With the death of the elderly members, the family traditions would be lost, and the surviving members would lose their spiritual culture and become irreligious. This added weight to his conclusion to not fight.
Read the entire book:
« The Song of God—Volume 1, chapters 1-6
This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can also choose a paid subscription to support this work.
You can also receive the updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.