CHAPTER 1, TEXT 36: Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and our friends. What should we gain, O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?
Arjuna is in deep distress. Like a lawyer, he is presenting his case to not engage in this vicious war. Arjuna is arguing here that "sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors." Defining terms is a good place to start in any logical argument, so Prabhupad first defines "aggressor":
According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: (1) a poison giver, (2) one who sets fire to the house, (3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, (4) one who plunders riches, (5) one who occupies another’s land, and (6) one who kidnaps a wife (53).
Each of these types of aggressors threaten one's life, and threatening one's livelihood (such as occupying another's land) is a threat to one's life. In a rather natural sense of balance and justice, for the aggressor to receive the same kind of treatment is logical - their life is threatened and even taken. In simple terms, you get what you deserve.
Prabhupad then offers a statement that, in today's context, would be taken as quite controversial: "Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors" (53). Whoah, interesting. This sounds almost barbaric, to kill someone "at once" for a violent crime that s/he committed. The debate surrounding the modern death penalty is thick with emotional tension and political strife. On a strictly monetary scale, to convict a man or woman of the death penalty takes, on average, 1.26 million dollars (amnestyusa.org) to process. In contrast, to incarcerate a man or woman (often for life) costs about 740,000 dollars. That is a difference of half a million dollars - it seems it would be better to just keep a man or woman jailed for life than go through the tangled political web and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to ultimately convict a man or woman who may not actually be guilty. In fact, throughout the history of the world there have been many instances of a man being killed who was later discovered to actually be not guilty, and so I imagine that the burden of this history - wrongful death - has driven these costs and the controversy to frenzied heights.
Consider though that Prabhupad states, "Such aggressors are at once to be killed." The key phrase here is "at once." The way that death penalty cases are currently managed, the average length to process such a case is 16 years (bnd.com). In this time, over a million dollars is spent on fees and investigation, and the aggressor is simply waiting behind bars.
But let's contrast this with a situation when an aggressor attacked another and in self-defense that person killed the aggressor immediately. The court case is more straightforward and swift, millions of dollars are not spent, the person acting in self-defense is not imprisoned for 16 years or more; there is - in other words - no sin incurred. In fact, there may even be a sense of relief that justice was served immediately. Prabhupad asserts that "Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting any ordinary man" (53).
Of course, the biggest problem is determining motivation. Was the person acting as an aggressor actually defending his or her own life? Was the person acting in self-defense actually framing the aggressor for murder? We have all seen enough crime movies or possibly paid attention to real-life court cases to know that the matter is often not so simple - the person who looks like the aggressor could be innocent of wrongdoing, and the person who looks innocent could be guilty of unjust violence.
In Arjuna's situation, though, the evidence is clear. The aggressors - The Kurus - have shown time and time again that they are relentless in plundering the riches of the Pandavas, occupying their land, and even inviting them to a flammable house in an effort to kill them. There were no repercussions simply because the Kurus were in power. Time and time again, justice did not prevail.
Thus, Prabhupad refutes Arjuna's concern that "Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors." There is no sin to slay aggressors such as these.
Nevertheless, even though so much violence has been perpetrated towards him and his family, Arjuna is still in distress at the prospect of fighting, because although meting out immediate justice befits an ordinary man, "Arjuna is not an ordinary person" (53). He is saintly. Saintly persons are "advised to forgive" and "such [saintly] injunctions are more important than any political emergency." He is seeing how these aggressors are no ordinary aggressors - they're his own grandfather, teacher, friends, sons, grandsons (53) and more. He argues that to forgive, especially his kinsmen, is religious and noble, no matter the political emergency.
Arjuna also emphasizes that there's nothing to gain - no happiness or peace of mind - in ruling over a kingdom that was obtained through such bloody, tainted means.
Like a lawyer in a court case, such are the opening arguments of the saintly Arjuna, and we will explore more of his reasons in the upcoming verses. As a reader, 5,000 years after this conversation was spoken, I empathize with Arjuna. And that is the point. We are meant to connect with Arjuna's distress, connect with the struggles we face in our own lives that no amount of logic can reason us out of. Deep down, we all desire to not simply be ordinary and mete out ordinary justice to our aggressors, but to be saintly and forgive. As the Catholic Lord's Prayer goes, "[O Lord] forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." Being unconditionally merciful towards another - especially a family member - resonates on a deep religious and spiritual level.
That said, we can feel the tension build. We can feel that, somehow, Arjuna is arguing a case that will be refuted by Krishna. This tension is the basis of the entire Bhagavad-gita.
We shall see where Krishna, The Supreme Lord, takes us.
Arjuna is in deep distress. Like a lawyer, he is presenting his case to not engage in this vicious war. Arjuna is arguing here that "sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors." Defining terms is a good place to start in any logical argument, so Prabhupad first defines "aggressor":
According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: (1) a poison giver, (2) one who sets fire to the house, (3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, (4) one who plunders riches, (5) one who occupies another’s land, and (6) one who kidnaps a wife (53).
Each of these types of aggressors threaten one's life, and threatening one's livelihood (such as occupying another's land) is a threat to one's life. In a rather natural sense of balance and justice, for the aggressor to receive the same kind of treatment is logical - their life is threatened and even taken. In simple terms, you get what you deserve.
Prabhupad then offers a statement that, in today's context, would be taken as quite controversial: "Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors" (53). Whoah, interesting. This sounds almost barbaric, to kill someone "at once" for a violent crime that s/he committed. The debate surrounding the modern death penalty is thick with emotional tension and political strife. On a strictly monetary scale, to convict a man or woman of the death penalty takes, on average, 1.26 million dollars (amnestyusa.org) to process. In contrast, to incarcerate a man or woman (often for life) costs about 740,000 dollars. That is a difference of half a million dollars - it seems it would be better to just keep a man or woman jailed for life than go through the tangled political web and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to ultimately convict a man or woman who may not actually be guilty. In fact, throughout the history of the world there have been many instances of a man being killed who was later discovered to actually be not guilty, and so I imagine that the burden of this history - wrongful death - has driven these costs and the controversy to frenzied heights.
Consider though that Prabhupad states, "Such aggressors are at once to be killed." The key phrase here is "at once." The way that death penalty cases are currently managed, the average length to process such a case is 16 years (bnd.com). In this time, over a million dollars is spent on fees and investigation, and the aggressor is simply waiting behind bars.
But let's contrast this with a situation when an aggressor attacked another and in self-defense that person killed the aggressor immediately. The court case is more straightforward and swift, millions of dollars are not spent, the person acting in self-defense is not imprisoned for 16 years or more; there is - in other words - no sin incurred. In fact, there may even be a sense of relief that justice was served immediately. Prabhupad asserts that "Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting any ordinary man" (53).
Of course, the biggest problem is determining motivation. Was the person acting as an aggressor actually defending his or her own life? Was the person acting in self-defense actually framing the aggressor for murder? We have all seen enough crime movies or possibly paid attention to real-life court cases to know that the matter is often not so simple - the person who looks like the aggressor could be innocent of wrongdoing, and the person who looks innocent could be guilty of unjust violence.
In Arjuna's situation, though, the evidence is clear. The aggressors - The Kurus - have shown time and time again that they are relentless in plundering the riches of the Pandavas, occupying their land, and even inviting them to a flammable house in an effort to kill them. There were no repercussions simply because the Kurus were in power. Time and time again, justice did not prevail.
Duryodhana built a highly flammable house and invited the Pandavas to stay
with the intention of burning it down to kill his cousins.
Nevertheless, even though so much violence has been perpetrated towards him and his family, Arjuna is still in distress at the prospect of fighting, because although meting out immediate justice befits an ordinary man, "Arjuna is not an ordinary person" (53). He is saintly. Saintly persons are "advised to forgive" and "such [saintly] injunctions are more important than any political emergency." He is seeing how these aggressors are no ordinary aggressors - they're his own grandfather, teacher, friends, sons, grandsons (53) and more. He argues that to forgive, especially his kinsmen, is religious and noble, no matter the political emergency.
Arjuna also emphasizes that there's nothing to gain - no happiness or peace of mind - in ruling over a kingdom that was obtained through such bloody, tainted means.
Like a lawyer in a court case, such are the opening arguments of the saintly Arjuna, and we will explore more of his reasons in the upcoming verses. As a reader, 5,000 years after this conversation was spoken, I empathize with Arjuna. And that is the point. We are meant to connect with Arjuna's distress, connect with the struggles we face in our own lives that no amount of logic can reason us out of. Deep down, we all desire to not simply be ordinary and mete out ordinary justice to our aggressors, but to be saintly and forgive. As the Catholic Lord's Prayer goes, "[O Lord] forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." Being unconditionally merciful towards another - especially a family member - resonates on a deep religious and spiritual level.
That said, we can feel the tension build. We can feel that, somehow, Arjuna is arguing a case that will be refuted by Krishna. This tension is the basis of the entire Bhagavad-gita.
We shall see where Krishna, The Supreme Lord, takes us.
No comments:
Post a Comment