Gita Class 005, Ch.1 Verses 31-39

Bhagavad Gita Class By Swami Tadatmananda

Jan 30, 2021

Youtube link: 05: Bhagavad Gita Class by Swami Tadatmananda – Ch.1 Verses 31-39

Webcast every Saturday, 11 am EST.  All recorded classes available here:   • Bhagavad Gita – classes by Swami Tadatmananda  

Swami Tadatmananda’s translation, audio download, and podcast available on his website here: https://arshabodha.org/teachings/bhag…

Swami Tadatmananda is a traditionally-trained teacher of Advaita Vedanta, meditation, and Sanskrit. For more information, please see: https://www.arshabodha.org/

Note about the verses:  Swamiji typically starts a few verses before and discusses 10 verses at the beginning of the class. The screenshot of the verses takes that into consideration and also all the verses that were presented during the class, which may be after the verses discussed initially. We put the later of the two at the beginning

Note about the transcription:The transcription has been generated using AI and highlighted by volunteers. Swamiji has reviewed the quality of this content and has approved it and this is perfectly legal. The purpose is to have a closer reading of Swamiji.s teachings. Please follow along with youtube videos. We are doing this as our sadhana and nothing more.

———————————————————————–

Class 5

ॐ सह नाववतु  
oṁ saha nāv avatu

सह नौ भुनक्तु 
saha nau bhunaktu

सह वीर्यं करवावहै  
saha vīryaṁ karavāvahai

तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै  
tejasvināvadhītam astu mā vidviṣāvahai

ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः  
oṁ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ

Okay, good. Welcome back to our Saturday morning Bhagavad Gita class, our webcast. We begin each class with some recitation. We’ll begin with verse 26 and please glance at the translation so that you know what you’re reciting as you recite after me.

We’ll stop our chanting there and pick up the thread where we left off.

So we’re at this extremely dramatic point in chapter 1 where Arjuna has just asked Sri Krishna to drive their chariot out onto the battlefield. Arjuna looks on both sides of the battlefield and you see his family members on both sides and he realizes maybe for the first time that thousands and thousands of his own family members are going to die on that battlefield in the next 18 days of battle. And Arjuna has what we humorously called an emotional meltdown.

The symptoms he describes—we saw this 30th first, but look at it. He describes a panic attack.

“Gandivam Sramsate hastatt” — from my hand, my bow slips down.
“Twak chaiva paridakiyate” — my skin is burning.
“Na cha Shaktnomya vastatum” — brahmati iva me manaha — my mind is spinning.
“Brahmati iva me manaha Nacha Shaktnomya vastatum” — and I can’t even stand up any longer.

He’s so dizzy he can’t stand up. And notice, this is all his emotional reaction overcoming him and he can’t even stand up.

Arjuna, as we pointed out at the very end of the last class, has been knocked off his feet on the battlefield before the first weapon has been wielded and is knocked off his feet by his own emotions—his own emotional reaction.

This is not only dramatic but it’s really significant for several reasons.

One, as we said in the prior class, the context of the Bhagavad Gita is not a spiritual problem. The context of the Bhagavad Gita is Arjuna’s emotional problem. And what’s unique about the Bhagavad Gita is it gives this brilliant spiritual solution to Arjuna’s emotional problem.

In this way, the Bhagavad Gita has tremendous relevancy for us all because we all suffer from emotional problems.

More than that—and I want to return to this point because today’s class is going to be focused on the consequences of this inner battle. We said the inner battle is at several levels. One is, you know, there’s the symbolic—there is the physical battlefield, Kurukshetra. There’s a symbolic battle between dharma and adharma.

Now we come to this inner battle—a battle between what Arjuna intellectually knows he should do. Arjuna knows this is a dharma yudha. Arjuna knows this battle must be fought to restore dharma. And Arjuna knows very well that not to fight the battle will have worse consequences than fighting the battle. Arjuna knows all of this very clearly.

But his emotions are repulsed at the idea of fighting against his own family members. So here we have the inner battle—the battle between intellect and emotions—or, as I said in the last class, the battle between head and heart, to use some common expressions.

It’s also a battle between—Arjuna, what drives your behavior? And this is the general topic for today.

What drives our behavior? Is our behavior driven by dharma or is our behavior driven by what feels good?

You know, in I think in the 1960s and 70s in America, there was a popular saying: “Follow your heart.” Well, if you think about that prescription for life, it’s really dangerous and stupid—sorry to use the word.

“Follow your heart” means do whatever you feel like regardless of the consequences. Perhaps that’s not what that expression meant, but on the surface, this “follow your heart” philosophy means to do whatever feels good regardless of the consequences. And obviously, that is a ridiculous and harmful basis for making decisions in life.

To make decisions, you have to evaluate a situation. You have to consider various alternatives and their consequences. And you have to choose the best possible decision in that particular situation.

Tell me—you have a powerful intellect and you have powerful emotions. But which of those two faculties—the faculty of your intellect or the faculty of your emotions—which faculty is designed for this decision-making process? To evaluate a situation, evaluate options, consider consequences, choose the best?

Our emotions are not designed for that. Our emotions are designed for feeling.

Emotions—let’s be very clear here. This discussion is not to in any way denigrate our emotions. Emotions make us human. If we didn’t have emotions, we’d be like robots. Thank goodness we have emotions.

The point here is that emotions are meant for feeling feelings. Emotions are not meant for making decisions. I’ll say that again—emotions are not meant for making decisions. Our intellect is the instrument with which we make decisions.

And when we make decisions based not on our intellects, but when we make decisions based purely on our emotions—those are the decisions that get us in trouble.

“Follow your heart”—and this really is Arjuna’s dilemma. This is the inner battle. This is the inner conflict that is so intense. Arjuna has had a panic attack and he’s been knocked off his feet by the strength of his emotional reaction.

So Arjuna has the same problem. His intellect says the war must be fought because the consequences of not fighting are far worse. But Arjuna’s emotions say, “Don’t fight.”

This is Arjuna’s conflict. And of course, it’s symbolic of everyone’s conflict in life.

And we’re going to see in the coming verses in today’s class—we’re going to see how Arjuna responds to this inner conflict. And to give it away in advance—he doesn’t respond very well at all.

Of course, if he responded properly, we wouldn’t have a Bhagavad Gita, because Sri Krishna wouldn’t need to teach him. Arjuna responds very poorly.

Let’s see his response:

Starting with this verse, we’re going to see how Arjuna’s emotional reaction is so intense that it begins to distort his intellect. And this is the problem—you know, with the capital T.

Why do intelligent, good people make such terrible mistakes in life? And it happens all the time. Intelligent, dharmic people end up doing things which cause great harm to themselves and others. Why?

And the answer is—and what we’re going to see very vividly in today’s class is this: our emotions are so powerful, can be so powerful, that they take over. They take over and distort the way our intellects work.

When our intellects are unimpeded, they’re a pretty good guide to determining what is dharma and adharma. But the fact is, our intellects are subject to being distorted.

Our intellectual reasoning—let me say, our reasoning powers—our reasoning is capable of being distorted by the power of emotions. And we’ll see how that happens to Arjuna.

First of all, he says:
“Nimitani cha pa shyami” — pa shyami, I see.
“Nimitani” — omens. What kind of omens?
“Viparitani” — bad omens.

“I see bad omens, Keshava. Oh Krishna, I see bad omens.”

Omens—in a sense, superstition. Arjuna is by nature not a superstitious person. But right now, because as he’s on a battlefield being overpowered by his emotions, he’s starting to see these bad omens.

In this country, they speak of seeing a black cat. Or in an Indian context, maybe you see a crow or you see this lizard on your wall. Or a commentator says when your left eye starts to twitch, that’s an omen.

So here Arjuna, who’s a highly intelligent and mighty warrior, is starting to worry about these omens. He sees these superstitions, which he knows better he knows these superstitions are silly, but he begins to pay attention to these bad omens, and he says na cha and further na cha nupa shyami in the third line: “I don’t see shreyas, I don’t see any good hattwa, in the killing suhajnam of our own family members ahave in this battle, ahave in this battle.”

Naha nupa shyami — I don’t see any shreyas, any good coming out of it, because how can good come out of killing our own family members?

Well, this is so typical of the distortion of intellect. So on the surface, it absolutely looks like, “How can good come out of killing?” Well, remember our discussion of dharma yuddha. There are unique situations in which not to kill enemies causes more harm than letting them live. Of course, killing is harmful, but there are times when not to kill causes more harm.

Remember the silly example I gave in a prior class: cutting with a knife—cutting flesh open with a knife—sounds very horrible, unless that knife is in the hands of a skilled surgeon who is performing surgery to save a patient’s life. Generally, cutting flesh open with a knife is harmful. But if a patient needs surgery, not to cut the flesh causes more harm.

But notice here, Arjuna isn’t thinking like that. Arjuna says, “I don’t see any possible good that can come out of killing our own family members.” Clearly, Arjuna’s intellect has been distorted by the force of his emotions.

And we’ll see how that continues.

“Krishna.” Arjuna addresses his friend and charioteer.
Na cha, khaang chiye — I do not desire the Jayaan, victory. I don’t desire victory.
Na cha Rajaam — I don’t desire the kingdom.
Na cha Sukhani — nor do I desire the joys, the happiness, the pleasures that he would enjoy having fought and conquered his enemies.

So he says, “I don’t want to be victorious. I don’t want to rule the kingdom. And I don’t want the pleasures of the kingdom.”

Well, in one way, it’s correct—to fight a war merely for the sake of victory, just to be the world emperor, some kind of ego thing, that would be a problem. So to fight a war merely for the sake of victory is certainly a problem. To fight the war for the sake of Rajaam, we said before, for the sake of real estate, for the sake of territory, is not valid justification for war. Nor is to fight a war for Sukha, for pleasure, for happiness.

I gave the example—to fight for the sake of oil that’s in another land. These are not valid justifications for fighting a war.

What is a valid justification is Dharma. To restore Dharma, again—a Dharma Yuddha is one in which not to fight has worse consequences.

Notice that Arjuna leaves off Dharma. He says, “I don’t want Vijayan, victory. I don’t want Rajaam, to rule the kingdom. I don’t want Sukhani.” Fine. But he should be fighting for Dharma. He doesn’t mention that. More evidence of how his thinking has been distorted by the power of his emotions.

And he continues, Govinda—”O Krishna.”

Our commentator Madhusudana likes to explain all these words. Govinda is a famous name for Sri Krishna. The surface meaning is “cowherd.” Go — cow. Go means cow. Vinda — the root Vinda is to find. So, the one whose job it is to find the cows when they wander off is Govinda.

But our commentator gives a more sophisticated meaning. Go generally means cow. Go can mean senses—your five senses: sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. So in this case, Govinda has the same meaning as Hrishikesha. Remember Hrishikesha? The Isha, the Lord of the Hrishika, senses.

Here, the one who is the Vinda—the one who finds or controls the Go, the senses. So Govinda, in that sense, means the same as Hrishika, Lord of the senses.

Okay, Govinda or Krishna:

Kim nahah, Rajayana.
Kim Rajayana — nice Sanskrit idiom. What is the use of Rajayana? What’s the use of ruling the kingdom?
Nahah — for us. What is the use of—what do we get out of it? What’s the purpose? What’s the use of the kingdom?
Kim bhogaihi — what’s the use of all these pleasures?
Kim jiviten eva — or what is the use of even living?

Now the first two sound somewhat reasonable. “What’s the use of getting the kingdom?” Fine. The war should not be fought for the kingdom.
Kim bhogaihi — what’s the use of pleasures? Good. Arjuna understands a war is not justified by gaining a kingdom for the sake of pleasures.

But then he takes one step too far, so to speak:
Kim jiviten eva — what’s the use of living?

Arjuna is speaking as many deeply depressed people speak: “How can I go on? What’s the use of living?” These are the words of someone who’s deeply depressed. These are the words of someone whose thinking has been so distorted by depression, by sadness, by grief, that you don’t even see a purpose in living.

So Arjuna’s words here really reveal the depth of his depression. Now the war has not yet been fought, but Arjuna knows that the consequence of the war is going to be the death of thousands of his beloved family members.

So psychologists use a term, “anticipatory grief,” meaning even before they’ve died, Arjuna is already grieving their loss, and that tremendous grief causes depression. And that deep depression leads him to say:

Kim jiviten eva — what’s the use of living? How can I go on?

Then:

More evidence of Arjuna’s thinking—his rational thinking—being highly distorted by the strength of the emotions. He argues. He makes an argument that on the surface sounds okay, but his argument is actually highly distorted.

He says ye sham, ye sham arte — those for whose sake, ye sham arte — those for whose sake kanshita no, we seek, we desire, we pursue:

Rajyam — regaining the kingdom. Remember, they’ve been deprived—the Pandavas were cheated out of the—remember this wonderful story, we won’t retell it. They were cheated out of the kingdom by the rigged dice game. Remember Shakuni playing against Yudhishtira in this rigged dice game? We won’t retell that story.

Anyway, they were cheated out of the kingdom, and referring to that, Arjuna says here kanshita no — we seek Rajyam — regaining the kingdom we were cheated out of.

Kanshita no — we seek bhogaha — the pleasures of regaining the kingdom.
We seek Sukhani ca — we seek the pleasures that we would have, having regained the kingdom.
We seek all of that ye sham arte — for their sakes, for whose sakes.

Interesting argument. He says those for whom we seek to restore the kingdom and regain the pleasures of the kingdom, te ime — the word “te” of te ime drops due to grammar rules — te ime, all of them, avastita — are standing here yudhe — in this battle, on this battlefield.

All of them are standing here, pranan tyaktva — giving up their lives, dhanani ca — and giving up their wealth.

Of course, you give up your life, you give up your wealth—giving up everything. Look at the argument Arjuna makes here:

“Those for whose sakes we are fighting this battle—they are standing here on the battlefield, giving up their lives.”

So he argues, “What’s the point of fighting this battle if those for whose sakes we’re fighting are going to die on the battlefield?”

On the surface, it sounds like a good argument. But here again, Arjuna’s emotions have overwhelmed him to such an extent that he has lost sight of the fact that it is a Dharma Yuddha.

He’s making a valid point—that so many of those who would benefit from winning this war will die on the battlefield. Absolutely true. Yet it remains a fact that if Arjuna doesn’t fight the battle, the consequences are far worse. That’s the point.

This is more evidence of how his intellect—his rational thinking—has been perverted, let us say, by the strength of his emotions.

Te ime — those who are standing here on the battlefield about to die.

And then he elaborates. So he actually tells who they are. Who are those who are going to die on the battlefield and be deprived of the benefits of fighting the war and victory?

Arjuna enumerates them:

Who are they, assembled on the battlefield, who are going to perish on the battlefield and not reap the benefits of victory?

Sri Krishna—Arjuna speaking to Sri Krishna—elaborates, enumerates them. He says:

Achar-yah — our teachers: Dronacharya, Kripacharya.
Pitarah — our fathers.
Putrah — our sons. Arjuna’s son, Abhimanyu.
Tathaiva cha pitamahah — and our grandfathers, pitamahah — plural. Our grandfathers, Bhishma of course.
Matulah — our uncles: Shakuni and the rest.
Shwasurah — our fathers-in-law. All these family terms.
Pautrah — our grandsons.
Shyalah — our brothers-in-law.
Tatha cha sambandhinah — and all of these relatives.

So here, Arjuna elaborates and points out in great detail to Sri Krishna: “All of these family members are gathered here on the battlefield, and a great many of them are going to die. If they die, they will not reap the benefits of victory, so why should we fight?”

Again, Arjuna is not thinking about the consequences of not fighting the war. He’s looking at one side. The consequences of fighting the war are horrible. But the consequences of not fighting the war are even worse, and he’s not considering that at this point—because of his emotions.

Okay, then:

Na icchami — in the first line. I do not want hantum — to kill. I do not want to kill Etan — all of these. All of whom? All of these he’s just narrated in a prior verse. Aetan — all of these family members. Remember, on both sides of the battlefield. All of them, na hantum icchami — I don’t want to kill them. ghnato api — even if I am killed.

This is the first time Arjuna is suggesting that it would be better for him to die than for all of his family members to die. And we’ll see this at the very end of the chapter, I think, in the next class. Arjuna is beginning to think in terms of the fact that it would be better for him to die than for all of his family members to die. But we’ll see this more later.

But look at how distorted his thinking is. First of all, Arjuna is crucial for the Pandava victory. If Arjuna does not fight, the Pandavas cannot possibly win. But Arjuna now is saying, “It would be better if I were to be killed on this battlefield so that they don’t have to die.”

Again, Arjuna is only looking at the consequences of fighting the war. Arjuna is not considering the consequences of not fighting the war. His intellect has been distorted by his emotions.

Madhusudana — O Krishna, Sudana, the one who killed the demon Madhu. I think the story comes in the Bhagavata Purana. Arjuna defeats, kills the demon Madhu.

Madhusudana — O Krishna, I don’t want to kill all my beloved family members even if I were killed. And he says, “I don’t want to kill them api — even for the sake of Trilokya Rajyasya — even if I could gain Rajya, even if I could become king Trilokya — of the three worlds. Heaven, earth, and the intermediate world — the three worlds. Even for the sake of ruling over the three worlds, I wouldn’t want to fight this war.

Kimnu — another Sanskrit idiom. Kimnu — much less would I fight this war hetoh — for the sake mahikṛte — of ruling this little kingdom.

To make it clear, Arjuna says, “I wouldn’t fight for the sake of becoming king of the three worlds. Then how would I possibly fight for the sake of this limited kingdom?”

Notice how very interesting — how we’re all capable of using our intellects to argue for the wrong thing. We call this rationalization.

Rationalization is when you use your intellect to argue for the wrong thing. A good example — my favorite example of this is when you say, “Just this once.” What a famous example of rationalization.

When you say “just this once,” you’re saying that in the context of you’re about to do something you know is wrong, but yet you give yourself permission to do it anyway, with the very weak excuse — lame excuse — that you’re only going to do it once and you’re not going to do it again.

“Just this once” is an example of rationalization, and it is ridiculous.

First of all, the fact that you say “just this once” means it’s wrong. So if it’s wrong, you shouldn’t even do it once. Even doing it once is wrong. And then further, the rationalization is, “I won’t do it a second time.” But if you do it once, you’re more likely to do it a second time, and third time, and fourth time.

So this is — we call it rationalization. It’s misuse of our intellectual powers to give ourselves an excuse to do something we know is wrong.

That’s what Arjuna’s doing here. He is misusing the intellect — which is so powerful and which can keep us on the path of Dharma — that intellect can be hijacked, as it were, by our emotions.

And when our intellect gets hijacked by our emotions, we can rationalize anything. We can make an excuse to do any kind of adharma. That is rationalization.

That’s a huge problem — when our intellects are overcome, hijacked as it were, by our emotions.

Arjuna continues:

Hatvaitan na hi tat vayinah — more rationalization.

Na hatya — having killed Dhartarashtran, having killed these hundred sons of Dhritarashtra and all the other warriors on them — other side of the battle, all the warriors that represent adharma.

Na hatya — having killed Dhartarashtran — the sons of Dhritarashtra, meaning symbolically, having defeated adharma, is what it symbolically represents.
Ka prītih syāt — what pleasure would there be for us?

Na hatya — in killing Dhartarashtran, in killing the sons of Dhritarashtra. What massive rationalization! Again, the sons of Dhritarashtra are the force of adharma. If Arjuna doesn’t defeat the forces of adharma, the consequences will be horrible.

I gave in the last class the example of World War II. For the United States to enter into World War II, the amount of death, the number of soldiers killed — American soldiers killed — was tremendous. If I remember right, half a million. If I hope I’m correct — half a million United States soldiers lost their lives. I think that’s correct. Roughly half a million American soldiers, young men, lost their lives in fighting World War II.

What a horrible loss. But not to fight World War II would have caused a loss — the consequences would have been far, far greater.

So Arjuna continues to rationalize:

Ka prītih syāt — what pleasure would there be nahah — for us?
Na hatya — in killing, in defeating Dhartarashtran, the sons of Dhritarashtra — what good could come out of defeating the forces of adharma?

You can see how distorted Arjuna’s thinking is.

Janardana — O Krishna. Very powerful name. Arjuna, the one who kills janah — people, the one who is capable of killing anyone. Janardana, this powerful name for Lord Krishna.

Arjuna continues in the last line:

Hatva — having killed
Etan — having killed them
Atatayinah — look at this! Arjuna admits that they are evil people.

Atatayin is those who transgress Dharma — is a literal meaning of Atatayin — those who transgress Dharma.

So hatva etan atatayinah — having killed these sons of Dhritarashtra, who constantly transgress Dharma, Arjuna argues — Arjuna argues incorrectly — Arjuna rationalizes:

Papam eva ashrayet asman — asman — for us.
Ashrayet — what the result for us would be — what?
Papam eva — sin alone. Only sin would be the result for us if we kill these transgressors of Dharma.

What kind of logic is that?

By killing the transgressors of Dharma, you commit an act of punya, not an act of papa. Arjuna argues for the opposite. This is rationalization.

By killing those transgressors of Dharma, we would be committing sin. No! That’s Arjuna’s argument, and it’s actually absolutely ulta — opposite. It’s incorrect.

That’s the power of rationalization. The power of emotions to twist our reasoning to such an extent that we can make an argument for what is adharma.

Again, the intellect — which is meant to help us discern the path of Dharma and stay on the path of Dharma — that intellect can be twisted by our emotions to such an extent that we can make an argument to follow a path of adharma. Exactly what Arjuna is arguing for.

And he concludes here — Arjuna concludes:

Arjuna concludes:

Tasmān — therefore,
Vayam na arhāḥ hantum — therefore na arhāḥ — we are not fit to kill,
Dhārtarāṣṭrān — the sons of Dhritarashtra,
sa-bāndhavān — who are our relatives.

We should not kill the sons of Dhritarashtra who are our relatives. Why?

Third line — hi — because
Svajānām — because they are relatives.
Svajānām hi — he says. But the argument is
katham — how?
Hatvā svajānām — how, by killing our relatives,
Sukhinah syāma — how can we be happy?

What joy can we find in killing our own relatives?

Can you see how distorted Arjuna’s argument is here?

So the argument is for Sukhinah syāma — how can we be happy? What is the goal here on the battlefield? Is the goal to be happy, or is it the goal to restore Dharma?

You see, Arjuna here is arguing, “How can we be happy killing our own family members?” Absolutely, killing your own family members is the most atrocious thing you can imagine. It’s horrible, absolutely horrible.

But again and again we come back to the point that this is a Dharma yuddha. Not to fight has even worse consequences — which Arjuna is overlooking right now because of the strength of his emotions.

Arjuna is arguing — this is the essence of that inner battle. The battle between head and heart.

Our emotions have their own agenda. What is the agenda of our emotions? What was that I said before? Follow your heart — do what feels good. And that’s what he’s saying — Sukhinah syāma — how can we be happy?

So he wants to feel good. Arjuna wants to feel good about himself. How can he feel good about himself if he kills his own family members? That’s his heart speaking, so to speak. That’s the message of his emotions.

But his intellect knows very well — this is a Dharma yuddha. It must be fought.

So here we have the emotional agenda — to feel good — is in conflict with the intellectual agenda — to follow Dharma.

In the long run, following Dharma will make you feel good. In the short run, it may not.

Think about that surgeon cutting open a patient. No one wants to cut another person’s flesh. But if that surgeon fails to cut open the patient’s flesh, the patient will perish.

So this is the conflict between an emotional agenda — to feel good — and the intellectual agenda — to follow Dharma.

Sri Krishna addresses — I’m sorry, Arjuna addresses Krishna here as Madhava. Madhava — literally “the one who is sweet.” That’s generally used as a term for the husband of Goddess Lakshmi. The husband of Goddess Lakshmi is Madhava, Lord Vishnu, Narayana. And Sri Krishna is addressed as Madhava here.

Yeah, we’ll see this — one last argument we’ll see here.

Distorted argument — one more example of rationalization:

Mithra-droha-kṛtapātakam

This verse is the first part of a sentence — we’ll see both parts. Sri Arjuna begins:

Yady api — even if.

Remember, we have to break all these words apart: Yady api ete. For a Sanskrit student, such a good exercise to separate those words.

Yady api ete —
Yady api — even if,
ete — these, the sons of Dhritarashtra,
na paśyanti — even if they are unable to see.

Unable to see what?

The third line:
Even if they can’t see In the third line, Dosham — the defect. The defect involved in Kula-Kshaya-Kritam — the defect that results from fighting against your own family, Kula-Kshaya. In fact, Arjuna is going to speak a lot about that.

So it’s family against family, right? Two sides of a family. So Arjuna here says even if our opponents, the sons of Dhritarashtra — even if Na Pashyanti, even if they can’t see the Dosham, the defect of fighting against your own family.

And in the last line:
Mitra-droha-kr̥ta-pātakam cha — and even if they can’t see, cha — and even if they can’t see Pātakam — the sin involved. The sin involved of what? Mitra-droha — the sin of going against your own family. Mitra — friends. The sins of going up against your own family members and friends.

Even if they cannot see how bad it is to fight against your own family, to go against your own friends — and why? Why would they be unable to see?

The second line: Lobha-upahata-cetasah — because cetasah, because their minds are upahata, overcome by lobha, by greed.

So this is Arjuna’s one further argument — even if the sons of Dhritarashtra are unable to see how terrible it is to fight against your own family members and friends, even if they cannot see how bad it is because lobha-upahata-cetasah — because their minds are overcome by greed.

Even then — and the sentence concludes:

Pashyadbhiḥ janārdana prapashyadbhiḥ janārdana — and again, that powerful name Janārdana — O Krishna, O Slayer of Men, O Krishna.

Remember — here’s a connection we need to see. First, he said, even if the sons of Dhritarashtra can’t understand how bad it is to fight against your own family because their minds are overcome by lobha — by greed.

But Arjuna is going to say in this verse — our minds are not overcome by lobha, by greed. (I’m sorry, I said grief — by greed.) Their minds are overcome by greed and that’s leading them to fight this terrible war. But our minds are not overcome by greed.

So what’s our excuse? They have an excuse. Their excuse is: their minds are overcome by greed. But our minds are not overcome by greed. Therefore — therefore, he says:

Katham — then how?
Nivartitum na arhāḥ — asmābhiḥ — by us.
And in the last line: pashyadbhiḥ — by us who can see clearly,
asmābhiḥ pashyadbhiḥ — by us who can clearly see what’s going on,
by us whose minds are not overcome by greed —
by us — katham na jñeyam — how could we not understand?

Understand what? In the third line:

Dosham kula-kṣaya-kṛtam — the dosham, the defect, the terrible harm that would result from fighting against our own family.

How could we not understand? Our minds are not overcome by greed — so how could we not understand the terrible consequence by fighting against the war?

And how could we not nivartitum — how could we not withdraw?
Pāpa-pāt asmāt nivartitum — how could we not nivartitum, refrain,
asmāt — from this,
pāpa-pāt — terrible sin?

Asmāt — the word changes due to grammar.
Asmāt — from this,
pāpa-pāt — from this sin.

How could we not understand better? Yeah — let me put the sentence together better:

Asmābhiḥ pashyadbhiḥ — by us who understand. We understand kula-kṣaya-kṛtam doṣam — we understand the terrible consequence of fighting against our own family members. Our minds are not overcome by greed.

Therefore, katham — how,
na jñeyam nivartitum asmāt pāpa-pāt — how could we not refrain, withdraw from this terrible sin — this sin of which is the doṣam, which is a result of kula-kṣayaṁ, fighting against and killing our own family members?

So you can see the extent of the distortion of Arjuna’s thinking. He’s saying: their minds are overcome by greed, therefore they’re fighting. Our minds are not overcome by greed — therefore, how can we not refrain? Therefore, we should refrain from fighting — because our minds are not overcome by greed.

Greed is not the point here. The point is Dharma.

Arjuna is unable to consider how bad the consequence will be if he fails to fight. And he is unable to consider that consequence because his emotions have overwhelmed him — distorted his reasoning.

Arjuna has fallen prey to all of this rationalization. And rationalization will lead you down the path of adharma.

We’ll continue at this center next class.