Srimad BhagavadGita

We saw that Arjuna became a victim of compassion due to his unwarranted affection towards his relatives. This misplaced compassion caused him great grief. Kṛṣṇa delivered ślokas from B.G 2.11 aśocyān anvaśocas tvaṃ... to B.G 2.30 na tvaṃ śocitum arhasi...  to explain to Arjuna that such compassion was unacceptable. In the following four ślokas Kṛṣṇa corrects Arjuna's misconception of perceiving his dharma (rightful duty) as adharma (sin). Kṛṣṇa begins by explaining to the deluded Arjuna that fighting the war which he was perceiving as adharma, was actually his dharma. 

Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna, "Moreover, taking into consideration your own prescribed duty of fighting the war as per your varṇa āśrama dharma, escaping from war does not befit you. For a kṣatriya, no greater merit exists than participating in a righteous war." 

api ca (Moreover) These words hint at a change in the topic. So far Kṛṣṇa explained how Arjuna's misplaced compassion was unwarranted and therefore unacceptable. Going forward, HE will be demonstrating that Arjuna's delusion of perceiving right as wrong is unacceptable.

sva-dharmam avekṣya Kṛṣṇa's words 'dharmyāt yuddhāt (righteous war)' in the latter part of the śloka tell us that sva-dharma (own duty), in Arjuna's case is dharma yuddha. It is Arjuna's prescribed duty as per his varṇa āśrama dharma (duties prescribed in the śāstras for one's class and stage in life). Therefore the meaning of the words is, 'Taking into consideration your own duty of fighting this war as per your kṣatriya dharma...'

na vikampitu marhasi (Escaping from this war started by you does not befit you) 'O Arjuna, since it is your prescribed duty to fight a righteous war, backing off at this stage does not befit you. For the same reason, the trembling that you experience on this battlefield, vepathuśca śarīre me... B.G 1.29, also does not befit a kṣatriya like you. 'The only thing this war will achieve is harming my relatives', this perspective which you have developed towards this war is making you feel guilty and resulting in a strong desire to stop the war. Just as an animal sacrifice in Agnīṣomīya sacrifice is considered righteous, destruction of life in a righteous war is in accordance with dharma. With the words 'sva-dharmam avekṣya', Kṛṣṇa explained why Arjuna should not be trembling. This is elaborated upon in the second half of the śloka as follows.

dharmyāt hi yuddhāt śreyo anyat kṣatriyasya na vidyate The prose order for this is 'kṣatriyasya dharma yuddhāt aynāt śreyaḥ na vidyate' (There is no other or greater means of success for a kṣatriya than dharma yuddha) 

dharmyāt yuddhāt 'dharmyāt' means not deviating from the righteous path. dharmyāt yuddhāt means a

war conducted in a righteous way. Śāstras on rāja dharma state that a war fought for the right reasons

following the right means is in accordance with dharma. Acts like attacking one who is unarmed, who has

turned his back to leave, who surrenders and requests for shelter or who is already engaged in battle

with another are stated as acts of adharma. A war in which such acts of adharma are not practiced is

certainly a righteous war.

śreyaḥ This term refers to the means of success. For a kṣatriya, dharma yuddha alone is the best means to      achieve mokṣa or any other objective of human pursuit.

    hi The 'hi' conveys that this is a well known fact mentioned in the śāstras and known to the world too.

    śauryaṃ tejo dhṛtir dākṣhyaṃ yuddhe chāpyapalāyanam| dānam īśvara-bhāvaścha kṣātraṃ

karma svabhāvajam || BG 18.43 (bravery in fearlessly entering into the battlefield, brilliance which

the enemy cannot overcome, fortitude even when you are face to face with death, the quality of sacrifice and

leadership are kṣatriya's natural duties) In this way, the duties of a kṣatriya are going to be described in the

latter chapters of the Bhagawad Gītā.

Summary:

Contrary to Arjuna's assumption that a war consisting of violence is adharma, it is in fact Arjuna's highest varṇa based duty in accordance with dharma (as is the case with Agnīṣomīya sacrifice).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of the readers might raise questions on the statement that 'killing of an animal in Agnīṣomīya yāga and killing of living beings in a dharma-yuddha are both in accordance with dharma'. This is presented in the form of questions and our answers.

​

Q: We do not agree with the statement, 'Killing of an animal in Agnīṣomīya yāga and killing of living beings in a dharma-yuddha are both in accordance with dharma'. The vedas say na hiṃsyāt sarvā bhūtāni (no living being should be harmed). From this statement we come to know that harming any living being is an act of adharma and hence killing of an animal in Agnīṣomīya yāga is also an act of adharma.

​A: The vedas also say agnīṣomīyam paśumālabheta (In the Agnīṣomīya yāga performed to attain heaven, killing of an animal as sacrifice is permitted). The two seemingly contradictory statements 'na hiṃsyāt sarvā bhūtāni' and 'agnīṣomīyam paśumālabheta' must be reconciled as follows, 'except for the killing of an animal in Agnīṣomīya yāga all other acts of hurting living beings are prohibited by the vedas'. Hence whenever a living being is hurt it does not become an act of adharma. The vedas do not oppose animal sacrifice in Agnīṣomīya yāga, they in fact recommend it for people desirous of attaining heaven.

​

Q: According to us, these two statements from the vedas 'na hiṃsyāt sarvā bhūtāni' and 'agnīṣomīyam paśumālabheta' are not contradictory. The first statement means that all the acts of violence towards living beings are acts of adharma and result in the experience of suffering. The second statement means that heaven is obtained by performing Agnīṣomīya yāga which involves animal killing. The second statement does not condemn the resulting experience of suffering which the first statement claims.The one who performs Agnīṣomīya yāga will experience suffering as told in the first statement and also experience heaven as told in the second statement. In comparison to the mighty reward of heaven, the magnitude of suffering appears small and hence it does not become an opposing factor in the performance of the yāga. Thus, when the first statement says, 'All the acts of violence', it includes the animal killing of Agnīṣomīya yāga too. As the acts of violence condemned by the first statement are acts of adharma, both animal killing in Agnīṣomīya yāga and killing of living beings in dharma-yuddha are certainly acts of adharma.

​A: Anything done contrary to what is prescribed in the vedas is adharma. With this understanding, the animal killing prescribed by vedas for Agnīṣomīya yāga has to be considered as dharma and not adharma.

​

Q: With this understanding about adharma, even the mere acts like moving our hands and legs which are neither prescribed nor condemned by the vedas will have to be considered as adharma. Hence we do not agree to this.

A: If animal killing in Agnīṣomīya yāga would cause suffering as claimed by you earlier, would the vedas which are said to have more parental affection than 1000 mothers and fathers, prescribe such a yāga?

Q: The herb Haritaki is known as the 'life giving herb' due its amazing medicinal benefits. Though it is bitter and astringent to taste, it is prescribed by ayurveda. Similarly, vedas prescribe the Agnīṣomīya yāga because the benefit of heaven obtained by performing the yāga is much greater than the sin incurred by the animal killing involved in the yāga. Moreover this sin can be overcome by atonement (prāyaścitta). The sāṃkhya tattva kaumudi says, hiṃsā ca puruṣasya doṣamāvakṣyati kratośca upakariṣyati (animal killing in yāga incurs sin for the performer and also aids in the performance of yāga) and yogasūtra vyāsabhaṣyam says syāt svalpaḥ sankaraḥ supariharaḥsapratyavamarsaḥ (some sin will be incurred by animal killing in yāga). Also Pancaśikhācārya, a disciple of Āsuri says that atonement accompanied with repentance can overcome this sin incurred by animal killing. From the above, it is certain that animal killing in Agnīṣomīya yāga as well as the killing of living beings in dharma-yuddha are certainly acts of adharma.

​A by Bhagawad Rāmānuja: In the Agnīṣomīya yāga, the animal does not face any harm. The animal getting killed in the yāga leaves its inferior animal body, obtains a beautiful devata body and attains higher auspicious realms like swarga (heaven). The vedas say na vā uvetam mriyase sa riṣyasi devātamidehi pathibhiḥ sugebhiḥ | yatra yanti sukṛuto nāpi duṣkṛtaḥ | tatra tvā devaḥ savitā dadhātu || Yajur kāṭhaka 4.6.9.46; Yajur Brāhmana 3.7.7.941 (In this way you are neither dying nor undergoing decay. You are attaining the gods in the right way. Only the most pious can go there. Sinners cannot go there. May the devata called Savita take you there.) The vedas say this to the goat whose breath is held. Any act causing disaster is called as hiṃsā (violence). In this case, the act of killing does not cause a disaster for the animal. On the contrary, it delivers the special object of pursuit called heaven. Hence there is no violence involved in the animal killing in Agnīṣomīya yāga and the vedic statement na hiṃsyāt sarvā bhūtāni is not applicable to it.

​

Q: Based on the strength of the vedic words na vā uvetam mriyase..., we might still agree that there is no violence meted out to the animal. But how can we agree that the killing of Bhīṣma, Droṇa and thousands of others is not violence?

​A by Bhagawad Rāmānuja: An act cannot be termed as violence merely because there is some suffering involved. If that was the case, then even the surgical operation performed by the doctor on the patient to cure his disease must be considered as violence. It is not that only the acts causing death have to be considered as violence. If that was the case, then stealing one's complete wealth, the experience of hell, mental torture, etc, which are in fact worse than death will not be considered as violence. But we see in regular usage that these are called acts of violence. Hence, it is understood that any act that causes suffering and also results in bad outcome to the recipient is hiṃsa or violence. With this understanding, it is clear that the killing of an animal in Agnīṣomīya yāga and the killing of people in a righteous war both of which cause temporary suffering but result in great happiness at the end are not violence. Manu also says, tasmāt yagñe vadho avadhaḥ 5.39 (hence killing of an animal in a yāga is not violence) So saying Manu has clarified that though the common man thinks that it as violence, these are not actually acts of violence.

Hence killing in Agnīṣomīya yāga and in a righteous war are both not adharma.