Bhagavad-gita 1.42-45
O Krishna, maintainer of the people, I have heard by disciplic succession that those who destroy family traditions dwell always in hell.
This is another verse that can be read two ways – “those who destroy the family traditions dwell always in hell”, and also “those whose family traditions are destroyed dwell always in hell”.
The problems that arise from the destruction of the family tradition lay the individual vulnerable to social, economic, and personal exploitation from infancy through to old age.
43
Alas, how strange it is that we are preparing to commit greatly sinful acts. Driven by the desire to enjoy royal happiness, we are intent on killing our own kinsmen.
Keenly aware of the implications of the battle that is at hand in a way that Duryodhana clearly is not, Arjuna laments his involvement. In fact Duryodhana is the one who is driven by the desire to enjoy royal happiness. As will become clear from Arjuna's deliberations in this chapter and the next, his own motivation is something quite different.
44
Better for me if the sons of Dhritarashtra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield.
In the face of this realization, Arjuna loses his will to fight. It is more than simple cowardice. He realizes what the outcome of this battle will be. Arjuna's concerns are well founded. The battle will take place, and the unravelling of the social structure will begin to take place soon afterwards.
45
Sanjaya said: Arjuna, having thus spoken on the battlefield, cast aside his bow and arrows and sat down on the chariot, his mind overwhelmed with grief.
Arjuna is in a clear dilemma. In neither case can he see a good outcome. Either he fights and wins, in which case he kills his family members, the family tradition is destroyed and society is irreparably damaged, or else he is killed, with the same destruction of the family tradition. He reasons that the best course of action would be to die unresisting, and in this way preserve the family tradition.
These are all characteristic sentiments of an authentic leader. An authentic leader is a servant of the people and is aligned with and serving something greater than himself or herself.
However, Arjuna's compassion, while admirable compared with the mentality of Duryodhana, is still insufficient to elevate him to the position of an authentic leader. Intentions notwithstanding, without alignment with universal principles admirable sentiments are insufficient to empower a leader to do what is right. In any situation it is practically impossible to calculate the possible outcomes, and any empirical method of assessing courses of action quickly degenerates into a question of probabilities. Leaders must provide clarity in uncertain circumstances. Krishna is about to enlighten Arjuna to fundamental principles that will illuminate the way forward for him, and empower him to be an authentic leader, acting in knowledge selflessly in the service of the people.
- sitapati's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Srila Prabhupada comments on Gita commentaries
"So this paramparā system, the subject I was discussing, that how I become the representative of Kṛṣṇa, it is not very difficult. Everyone can become a representative of Kṛṣṇa provided he exactly presents what Kṛṣṇa says. That's all. Just like a peon, he is also representative of the postal department, ordinary peon. How he becomes representative of the whole postal system? If he delivers your letter or money order without mishandling it, as it is. You have... Some friend has sent you some money order. He gives you the paper, you sign, and he pays you. But if he pilfers the method(?), then he is no longer representative. He becomes thief, rogue.
So representative of Kṛṣṇa is also in the same way. If you present Kṛṣṇa's word as it is, without pilfering, without any adulteration, then you become Kṛṣṇa's representative. There is no difficulty. But, unfortunately, people want to show their scholarship, that "I understand Bhagavad-gītā from this angle of vision." Why should you try to understand Bhagavad-gītā from a different angle of vision? The first preference should be given to the author. The author has given you some knowledge, so he has got some particular aim and objective. So why should you change that? You have no right to change that. If you want to speak something from your side, you write your own book. Why should you take advantage of the popular book of Bhagavad-gītā and misrepresent it? That is the fun. You see?
There are about six hundred different types of editions commenting on Bhagavad-gītā. But according to Bhagavad-gītā, all these six hundred editions in different, studied from different angle of vision, they are all absurd and nonsense. It is very difficult. People have been misled by the so-called commentaries. There is no need of unnecessarily commenting on certain things. There is no necessity. Commentary or interpretation required when things are not very clear. Then you can suggest, "The meaning may be like this." But when the things are clear, why should you comment? There is no necessity of comment. "
- Town Hall Lecture - Auckland, April 14, 1972
Your servant,
Ekendra das
http://www.gopala.org/
---------------------------
Keep it up prabhu
I'm counting on you... :-)