Chapter 1 · Verse 39·Spoken by Arjuna
कथं न ज्ञेयमस्माभिः पापादस्मान्निवर्तितुम्। कुलक्षयकृतं दोषं प्रपश्यद्भिर्जनार्दन
kathaṁ na jñeyam asmābhiḥ pāpād asmān nivartitum kula-kṣhaya-kṛitaṁ doṣhaṁ prapaśhyadbhir janārdana
But we see clearly the evil of destroying the family. Why should we not have the sense to turn away from this sin, Krishna?
Word by Word
Saved for this reading session
Three movements · tap a label to switch
Sanskrit recitation by Swami Brahmānanda
Audio from the Gītā Supersite, IIT Kanpur
Synthesis · a glossed leaf
machine-assisted draft, pending review
Convergence
rjuna is asking a question that sounds like a settled conclusion: why should we not know enough to draw back from this sin? He is speaking now for himself and the wise on his side. The word he uses for the wrong he fears is dosha, the fault or evil that comes from kula-kshaya, the destruction of the family or clan. His claim is that since he and his people clearly see this evil in advance, the natural and fitting response is to recognize it as sin and turn away from the war. Some commentators stress that this is the contrast Arjuna draws with the other side: even though Duryodhana and his men, blinded by greed, do not see the fault, we who do see it have all the more reason to refuse.
Dhanapati Sūri · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Lokmanya Tilak · Swami Ramsukhdas
The heart of the dosha that Arjuna foresees is the collapse of the family's dharma, its inherited religious and moral duties. The phrase is kula-dharma, the duties proper to a lineage. These are the long-standing rites handed down from generation to generation: the regular and occasional ceremonies, the fire-offering called Agnihotra, the sacrifices, and the safeguarding of the family's customs. When the men of the family are killed in war, these duties perish, simply because the people who used to perform them are gone. The commentators are precise about the mechanism: the loss is not metaphysical but practical, dharma falls into ruin through the sheer absence of anyone left to carry it out.
Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Śrī Bhāskara
Once the family's dharma is gone, the vacuum does not stay empty; adharma, lawlessness, rushes in and overpowers those who remain. The survivors here are the children and the rest of the family who are left behind. With the elders dead and the inherited duties broken, there is no one to maintain or transmit right conduct, so unrighteousness takes hold and pervades what is left of the household. Several commentators describe this almost as a law of opposites: where dharma falls away, adharma necessarily springs up, because the two cannot both occupy the same ground. This is the first link in the chain of ruin that Arjuna will spell out in detail in the verses that follow, from 1.40 onward.
Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Śrī Bhāskara
Arjuna treats foreknowledge of harm as itself carrying moral weight. Because the evil is seen clearly in advance, ignorance can be no excuse; to go ahead with the war anyway would be deliberate, knowing wrongdoing, which is graver than wrong done in ignorance. One modern reading frames this as the principle that the wise should not answer one sin with another: even if the other side is wicked, a person of understanding should not become wicked in order to punish them. So Arjuna's plea is not only that the war is harmful, but that for people who can see the harm coming, refusing it is the only conduct worthy of the wise.
Dhanapati Sūri · Swami Sivananda · Lokmanya Tilak
Divergence
Here the commentators are of one mind.
A Seeker Asks
If Arjuna can see so clearly that this war will destroy his family and breed lawlessness, why is his reasoning here treated as a problem to be cured rather than the obvious right answer?
The commentators do not dispute Arjuna's facts. The destruction of the family really does cause the inherited duties to perish for want of anyone to perform them, and lawlessness really does flood in after dharma falls away. On its own terms his survey of the harm is sound, and one reading even grants that for those who see such harm coming, refusing to add sin to sin is the conduct worthy of the wise.
Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Śrī Bhāskara · Lokmanya Tilak
The difficulty is not in what Arjuna sees but in where he is not looking. His clear sight is aimed entirely outward, at the greed of Duryodhana and the others; he does not notice that he himself is gripped by moha, a deluded attachment to his own kin. One commentator points out that this is exactly how moral blindness works: while we catalog others' faults, a quiet pride hides our own from us, and the very act of dwelling on their fault becomes a fault. So Arjuna's reasoning reads as a problem not because it is false but because it is partial, argued from inside a delusion he cannot yet see, which is why it needs the rest of the Gita to answer it.
Swami Ramsukhdas
Contemplation
One commentator turns this verse into a mirror for our own moral blind spots. Notice how Arjuna's whole gaze is fixed on the fault in Duryodhana and the others, on their greed, their refusal to see. That outward gaze feels like clear sight, but it quietly hides his own fault from him. He is bound by moha, a kind of deluded family-attachment, and because his eyes are turned outward he cannot see it. There is a rule worth carrying away from this: so long as we are busy seeing the faults of others, we do not see our own; instead a subtle pride creeps in, the feeling that the fault is in them but not in us. And seeing others' faults is itself a fault, one that travels in pair with this self-satisfaction. The practice this invites is simple and searching. When you find yourself most certain of someone else's wrong, pause and ask what in you that certainty may be concealing.
Sit with this · Swami Ramsukhdas
Pull up a chair.
You have come to sit with this verse. When you are ready to hear the translators and the commentators in full, tap a name in The seating.