Gita 02.05 – Hard choices have to be made to avoid harder consequences

Audio Link 2: https://www.thespiritua2lscientist.com/gita-02-05-hard-choices-have-to-be-made-to-avoid-harder-consequences/

gurūn ahatvā hi mahānubhāvān
śreyo bhoktuṁ bhaikṣyam apīha loke
hatvārtha-kāmāṁs tu gurūn ihaiva
bhuñjīya bhogān rudhira-pradigdhān (Bg 2.05)

Word-to-word:
gurūn — the superiors; ahatvā — not killing; hi — certainly; mahā-anubhāvān — great souls; śreyaḥ — it is better; bhoktum — to enjoy life; bhaikṣyam — by begging; api — even; iha — in this life; loke — in this world; hatvā — killing; artha — gain; kāmān — desiring; tu — but; gurūn — superiors; iha — in this world; eva — certainly; bhuñjīya — one has to enjoy; bhogān — enjoyable things; rudhira — blood; pradigdhān — tainted with.

Translation:
It would be better to live in this world by begging than to live at the cost of the lives of great souls who are my teachers. Even though desiring worldly gain, they are superiors. If they are killed, everything we enjoy will be tainted with blood.

Explanation:
Arjuna continues his counterargument to Kṛṣṇa’s instruction to “not give into emotional weakness.” He argues that his stance is not due to emotional weakness but is rooted in an important dynastic consideration. He says:
gurūn ahatvā hi mahānubhāvān : Rather than killing such great personalities like my gurus,
śreyo bhoktuṁ bhaikṣyam apīha loke : Arjuna uses the term ‘śreyo’ (better), which he has previously employed in Bhagavad-gītā 1.31 (na ca śreyo ’nupaśyāmi). Here, bhoktuṁ means to enjoy, and bhaikṣyam means begging. The phrase ‘bhoktuṁ bhaikṣyam’ is an oxymoronic juxtaposition of words—“better to enjoy by begging.” We may wonder, what enjoyment can there be in begging? Arjuna emphasizes that even though he may have to live as a mendicant, begging for sustenance, he considers it preferable to the alternative. Living by begging in this world (apīha loke) is better than living after killing one’s relatives.
hatvārtha-kāmāṁs tu gurūn ihaiva : Here, ‘artha-kāmāṁs’ refers to those desiring wealth. In this context, it refers to his gurus, particularly Droṇa, who has sided with the Kauravas because they provided him employment. Even though these gurus may have acted out of material desires, Arjuna argues that their motivations do not diminish their venerability—they are still worthy of worship.
bhuñjīya bhogān rudhira-pradigdhān : Arjuna further states that if they were to enjoy the spoils obtained after killing their loved ones, such enjoyment would be tainted with blood. This is a visually evocative phrase, underscoring the grim consequences of his actions and the moral cost of such a victory.

The point Arjuna is making here is: “How can I enjoy the spoils of war when they are tainted with the blood of those I revere?” He concludes that it is better to live by begging. Anticipating potential objections, he addresses them at his own level, focusing on the question of survival without fighting his relatives. He responds, “Fine, I will live by begging.” For him, even that option is preferable to committing such grievous acts.

Another objection is that they are not truly gurus—they have acted improperly. Droṇa and Bhīṣma, by remaining silent during Draupadī’s dishonor, became culpable. Additionally, their siding with the Kauravas for monetary considerations has rendered their actions impious.

The reasons for Droṇa and Bhīṣma siding with the Kauravas can sometimes appear mysterious. Externally, as recounted in the Mahābhārata, Bhīṣma himself explains: “Everyone is a servant of money. I am also a servant of money, and it is money that has bound me to the Kauravas.” This raises the question: How can Bhīṣma, a great soul of immense character, be bound by money? In truth, this statement reflects the humility of Bhīṣma. His words illustrate his acknowledgment of human frailty, even in his elevated position, rather than a literal servitude to wealth.

Several factors bound Bhīṣma to the Kauravas. One was his solemn vow to always protect the ruling king of the Kuru dynasty, which at that time included Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Duryodhana. Being vow-bound, he felt obligated to support them. Additionally, Kṛṣṇa desired Bhīṣma to fight on the side of the Kauravas to demonstrate a profound principle—no matter how powerful a person may be, if they oppose dharma, he will inevitably be defeated.

As for Droṇa, his loyalty stemmed from the financial support he had received from the Kuru rulers during his time of great need. Furthermore, his son, Aśvatthāmā, had developed a close bond of friendship with Duryodhana, primarily because of their shared antipathy towards Arjuna. This combination of Aśvatthāmā’s affection with Duryodhana and Droṇa’s financial indebtedness to the Kuru rulers led the father-son duo to side with the Kauravas.

In this way, they were artha-kāmāṁs—those motivated by material desires. Ideally, those who are guruvarya (exalted gurus) should be free from such attachments. This raises a question—if they are artha-kāmāṁs, can they still be considered gurus?

Arjuna’s assertion is that, yes, they are still gurus. Here, the term ‘guru’ is used in a broad, generic sense, not in the specific sense of a dīkṣā-guru. In this context, a guru refers to anyone who imparts knowledge. Droṇa, as the martial teacher of the Pāṇḍavas, is referred to as a guru, although he was never their spiritual teacher. The Pāṇḍavas relied on Dhaumya as their priest and Droṇa as their martial teacher.

Nevertheless, any teacher, irrespective of the field of knowledge they impart, deserves respect. In particular, the Pāṇḍavas shared an intimate relationship with Droṇa, as they were his favorite students and had gained significant knowledge and skills under his tutelage.

The Mahābhārata also states that if a guru acts improperly, they can be abandoned or rejected. To some extent, this principle could apply to Droṇa, given his actions. However, Arjuna is not thinking in those terms. Instead, he maintains his respect for Droṇa and others, despite their shortcomings.

Arjuna argues that whatever enjoyment they might gain from the war would be tainted by the blood of their revered elders and loved ones. For this reason, he firmly concludes that he cannot participate in the battle.

Arjuna’s dilemma is deeply relatable. What can one do when faced with the prospect of opposing those they respect, love, and adore? Yet, life sometimes demands difficult decisions—choices that must be made with clarity and resolve, setting aside sentimentality when necessary.

Arjuna is unable to set aside his sentimentality, and it is this unwillingness that Kṛṣṇa reproaches. To empower Arjuna to rise above his emotional attachments, Kṛṣṇa introduces him to spiritual knowledge—insight into the nature of the soul and its eternal relationship with Kṛṣṇa. By doing so, Kṛṣṇa aims to guide Arjuna toward a higher understanding, where spiritual emotions, transcendental sentiments, and awareness at the spiritual level replace material attachments.

In this world, relationships do not stay frozen—they are dynamic and ever-evolving. One may hold deep respect for someone, but it is important to recognize that people change over time. While gratitude for the help or guidance received is vital, we cannot assume that the person will remain the same or maintain the same exalted status indefinitely. Respect should not be blind or unquestioning, extending unconditionally for all time.

In India, there is a cultural tradition of respecting sādhus (holy persons). Unfortunately, this respect is sometimes exploited. Many individuals adopt the robes, appearance, and demeanor of a sādhu but misuse this trust to deceive and exploit others for personal gain.

A person’s conduct must be carefully observed to determine whether they are truly worthy of respect and allegiance. Without scrutinizing their behavior, undeserving respect can backfire, leading to detrimental consequences. Many so-called godmen are revered by millions as if they are incarnations of God, only to later mislead their followers in harmful ways. Therefore, it is crucial to thoughtfully assess who deserves our respect and ensure that we offer it to those who genuinely embody the qualities worthy of it.

Although Arjuna’s decision is not easy, sometimes hard choices must be made to prevent harder consequences. For instance, if a doctor who once helped us is now incompetent and unable to cure us, it doesn’t mean we harbor hatred toward the doctor. Instead, our focus shifts to the fact that we want to be healed. If the doctor is unable to provide the necessary treatment—especially if their failure stems from ignorance, negligence, or even maleficence—then it becomes clear that continuing to rely on that doctor is no longer viable. Just as we would seek a different doctor for our well-being, Arjuna must also make the difficult choice to act in accordance with higher principles to avoid greater harm.

There are several possibilities in these situations. One is when a person who has never been spiritual demands respect. Such a person should not be accepted as a spiritual authority. Another case involves someone with good qualities but who is not a serious spiritual practitioner—someone offering mundane advice. While this person may be respected as a worldly teacher, they are not fit to be a spiritual teacher. There is also the situation of someone who was once a spiritual teacher in good standing but later slipped.

Now, is it our place to judge others? No, but it is certainly our responsibility to discern and use our God-given intelligence to discriminate wisely. The mood is not to place ourselves as a judge over others to evaluate their moral character, but to recognize that we are patients in need of treatment. For spiritual healing, it’s not merely a matter of receiving instructions; it requires being inspired to live a particular kind of life. The spiritual master plays a central role in inspiring us.

We should focus on those who inspire us and take guidance from them to progress on our spiritual path. If someone who once inspired and guided us has now strayed from the path of proper conduct, we may need to distance ourselves and seek inspiration elsewhere. If a person falls into grievous misconduct, it may be necessary to seek shelter or guidance from another.

Generally, re-initiation is not required within the Vaishnava tradition if one has already received initiation from a Vaishnava guru. However, if the initial initiation came from a non-spiritual or karma-kāṇḍī guru, re-initiation from a genuine Vaishnava guru can be considered.

In general, this is a predicament that seekers may have to face. Although it is painful, following a person who has gone off track may lead us further astray. Hence, difficult decisions must be made to avoid even greater consequences. For Arjuna, if he does not fight, there will be severe consequences both for him and for the kingdom. Duryodhana, with his malicious rule, would continue, and the Pāṇḍavas would incur sinful reactions for neglecting their duty.

All these subtleties of choosing the right course of action will be illuminated in the Bhagavad-gītā as it unfolds.

Thank you.