Arjunas Counter Argument And Confusion- Gita Verses 13 Gita 2.4 – 2.6

So in the second chapter initially there is more of a conversational tone and then eventually it becomes more of a philosophical discussion, philosophical reflections so right now we are in the first ten verses which are more conversational and when Krishna says you are being cowardly to Arjuna Arjuna responds with indignation so when Krishna speaks to Arjuna and says you are being cowardly there are generally we can say there can be aggressive reaction but aggressive reaction can range over a wide variety of flavors you could say one extreme could be just throw a tantrum generally when somebody throws a tantrum means they are making a small thing into a big thing just they are getting angry about something which is really not worth getting angry about but the other extreme could be indignation in between you could have rage you could have many other emotions like that but the key difference I am trying to make out over here is indignation is it is more like anger at wrong doing when something wrong has happened then when we feel we have been wronged and in one sense we feel that that anger is justified that’s when we become angry and that anger is more indignant so here the indignation is Arjuna Krishna and Arjuna they are having a discussion and in one sense Krishna is ascribing a lower motivation to his action and he is saying this is cowardly and Krishna Arjuna is responding it’s almost like the two of them are talking past each other Arjuna is claiming there is a higher motivation it’s not cowardice at all it’s you could say it’s consideration it’s compassion it’s thoughtfulness it’s caution it’s carefulness whatever it is and he is saying that this is not a situation of ordinary cowardice at all because these are my this is my guru and this is my grandson so he tells to make this point Arjuna turns the table around and he says would you be nonchalantly fighting against your your grandfather and your teacher would you find that easy so he says these are people whom I should be offering flowers like in our tradition our culture also special guest comes up we may give them a bouquet of flowers so flowers are a sign of respect so it’s basically I should be respecting them but instead instead of offering flowers this is what I should be doing instead of them I am shooting arrows at them and that is it is not just disrespectful you could say it is outrageous it’s atrocious so how can I be doing this so he is saying that there is there is a issue of ethics over here so it’s almost like the Gita is going deeper and deeper there is an emotional dilemma I just don’t feel like doing it my heart is not in this Arjuna is saying that it’s not just an emotional dilemma it’s an ethical dilemma so emotional dilemma is that it doesn’t feel good it doesn’t feel right to me I am using good and right interchangeably they are not interchangeable but it’s more of feeling it doesn’t feel good or right to me but ethical dilemma is I don’t think this is good or right and he is telling how is not good or right and it involves shooting those whom I should be worshipping how can it be right so this point of ethical dilemma is what will be emphasized by Arjuna in his subsequent verses also but he is again using a rhetorical question rhetorical statement question how can I fight against my teacher and grandfather whom I should be worshipping so definitely Arjuna was emotional but it is not just an issue of emotions below the emotions there is serious ethical consideration also and if it’s just oh you are feeling afraid come on give up that fear and fight it’s not that I am feeling afraid or rather if I am feeling afraid it is not cowardice I am afraid whether I am doing the right thing or not so if at all there is fear there can be fear of death but there can also be fear of wrong doing that I may die that means fear I may die or fear is that what I am doing is wrong so he is telling that is the fear in my mind right now and I can’t it’s not this it’s this and then therefore he will say later I want to know what is the right thing that’s what he will say a couple of verses later so he is emphasizing the ethical dimensions of the issue over here here Arjuna is taking his case further saying that okay he said that these are venerable beings for me venerable elders for me I shouldn’t be fighting against them but even if somebody says that they have become materially minded they have become money minded that because the other side paid them that’s why they are fighting for them they have become like that but he says okay that may be true but that’s not the important fact they are still venerable elders that is the more important fact and therefore killing them means that what I get will be tainted by their blood and I don’t want this he says better that I abandon my claim to a kingdom and I just what will be the alternative for him in the past societies were quite you could say structured or stratified so it’s not that everybody had every single option open for them even if we consider the society in Europe and especially UK for example at the time when it was colonizing India or colonizing America for that matter even so there is the period of Regency or the Victorian period, Gregorian period basically the colonial society colonial UK there those who were the nobility those who were the Dukes and the Viscounts and the all those posts the nobility they were mostly landed gentry they had landed a property that they would earn from the land he would be produced over there the farm that’s what they would use or they would rent their property working like having a profession was considered unacceptable for them this is just not what you do that you work with your hands so that’s not what fits you the point I’m making over here is the past society was very structured and for a warrior the options in that sense were limited either the warrior acts as a protector that means the warrior is ready to fight but if the warrior finds fighting too difficult and the only other career option for the warrior is to renounce the world and become a beggar this is now it’s more of a renunciate a person who renounced the world the technical word for them is the more polite word for them is more refined word is mendicant these are holy beggars not beggars who they are beggars because they are too lazy to work or they can’t get a job it’s just because they feel that there is more to life than simply earning a living but in those situations Arjuna is you know Arjuna acknowledges that I can’t fight and if I can’t fight then the only option left for me is that I’ll have to become a beggar and he says even that for a person who has lived in royalty who has lived in prosperity who has lived with great honor for that person to be beggar would be very painful and humiliating but still he says even that is better than living at the cost of living on a kingdom that is got at the cost of the blood of my elders so he is saying this option is not working so this is what I will even this is preferable that’s what he is saying in this verse I think now he is making all these arguments but he is he now expresses his dilemma over here Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Nor do we know which is better it’s almost like he has aggressively advocated one position and almost at this point he is stepping back from his own position. So Arjuna’s conflict is being revealed over here.
Arjuna is conflicted deeply. He understands that this is suddenly if you see he’s using the plural over here like the he’s not a singular reference for himself I he’s using we because on one side he is saying that it’s better to be a beggar. That’s what he just said in the previous words.
But then he recognizes that maybe he would prefer that. But what is that? Is that what he would want his entire family to be? He has his brothers, he has his wife, he has his children. Is that really good for them? So better if it’s not fighting would mean he would be a beggar.
That’s what he said in the previous words. But now he’s saying that now so that that was the previous words basically. Now if you consider it from this verse’s perspective Arjuna is talking about in this text.
This is 2.7. He says that was 2.5. This is 2.6. So he’s saying I don’t know fighting or not fighting. I don’t know which is really good. I don’t know what is to be done.
And he says now he’s not exactly saying fighting over here. He’s saying conquering them or not conquering or being conquered by them. So that means that if he fights he can win.
It’s also possible that he can lose. So now being conquered can happen in two ways. One is that he fights and loses.
Or he doesn’t fight at all. Both ways he will be conquered. But the idea is that not being conquered or being conquered that’s terrible.
He will lose everything. As I said he will have to live as a beggar. But while this is terrible, conquering is in itself also terrible.
So he’s just feeling that I just don’t know what to do. So this verse especially depicts Arjuna is facing what in today’s management parlance would call as Arjuna dilemma is a lose-lose situation. If I fight I lose.
If I don’t fight I lose. So Shakespeare phrased it I think in Hamlet to do or not to do. That if I do I get caught in a lot of complexities.
That’s terrible. But if I don’t do it I had to live with myself. I could have done something to change things and I did not.
So it’s a way where he sees. It’s a situation where he sees no way ahead and that’s why he is. While this is indicating actually a significant difference in Arjuna’s thinking.
So in one sense Arjuna has these two options. I’m not necessarily fighting his superior just depicting. So till now he was advocating about not fighting.
But then why is it that suddenly he says I don’t know whether this is better or not better. Because in one sense the reasons for fighting they are there. They are evident.
Although they’re not articulated now. But it’s not that this is the first. As they said this is not Arjuna’s first rodeo.
It’s not his first fight. And it’s not that the Pandavas have not deliberated the ethics of the fight before. In fact before this war when they were deciding forming allies and everything the Pandavas tried in multiple ways to settle peacefully.
But so it’s evident even if it’s not articulated now. And his idea of not fighting that is been articulated now. But all the reasons for fighting are also coming in his mind.
And he’s just deeply conflicted at this point. I just don’t know what is better. It’s sometimes when the whole whole situation is going in a particular direction.
And we decide flowing in a particular direction we decide to go in the other direction. We think of going in the other direction. We need to articulate the reasons for going against the flow.
The flow is in this direction. Then if I want to go here instead of in the flow’s direction. Then I articulate the reasons why I’ll go there.
But then at the end of the day I also know the reasons why the flow is also a valid direction. So what happens in the Bhagavad Gita sometimes is if we have not read the Mahabharata then the reasons for this are articulated. Reasons for this are articulated.
The reasons for this are not articulated here. They are assumed to be known by the readers because the Gita is a part of a bigger book. And we discussed how atrocious and adamant and arrogant the Kauravas were.
And how they were not ready to settle for any peaceful compromise at all. So there are circumstantial reasons also for fighting which are not mentioned over here. But they are very much a part of their discussion.
They are part of the deliberation that is going on in Arjuna’s mind even if they are not discussed over here. The reasons for fighting are given here and the reasons for not fighting are given within the Gita. Because he has come in the middle of the battlefield that’s when he sees the gravity, the reality, the irreversibility, the immediacy of what is going to happen.
And that’s why it sinks into him. He’s aware of it but it just sinks into him. And we will talk about this in 2.8 when we discuss that also.
That what is Arjuna’s situation at this stage. So I’ll try to summarize quickly. So we discussed mainly three texts today.
So from this is Arjuna’s counter arguments. So Arjuna defends himself basically. First he says that this is not an emotional issue.
It’s an ethical issue. He’s taking the discussion deeper and he’s saying that would you be able to kill your relatives, shoot arrows at your elders? It’s not as simple as that. So then he says that, he gives his preference.
He knows his options are so terrible that kingdom, you could say blood-stained kingdom or begging. Those are his options and he says I’m ready to even choose this. That’s what he says in the next text.
Let’s continue on his discussion and then finally he says, he basically says, he expresses indecisiveness that I don’t know what is, because it’s not just my decision it’s a collective decision. So conquering is bad but being conquered by them is also bad and it’s not just for me, it’s for my own family, it’s for everyone. So I just don’t know which is better.
So that’s where he stops. Now we’ll see what he says further in the next text. Thank you.
This was 2-7.