Gita 04.04 – Accept responsibility for clear communication – don’t affix blame for unclear communication
arjuna uvāca
aparaṁ bhavato janma
paraṁ janma vivasvataḥ
katham etad vijānīyāṁ
tvam ādau proktavān iti
(BG 04.04)
Word-for-Word
arjunaḥ uvāca — Arjuna said; aparam — junior; bhavataḥ — Your; janma — birth; param — superior; janma — birth; vivasvataḥ — of the sun-god; katham — how; etat — this; vijānīyām — shall I understand; tvam — You; ādau — in the beginning; proktavān — instructed; iti — thus.
Translation
Arjuna said: The sun-god Vivasvān is senior by birth to You. How am I to understand that in the beginning You instructed this science to him?
Explanation
Here, Arjuna is raising an obvious question — one that would come to anyone reading or hearing this section — especially after Krishna states in 4.1 that He originally gave this knowledge to Vivasvan, the Sun God.
The natural question arises: How is this possible? Krishna and Arjuna are contemporaries, born around the same time. Arjuna is certainly not of an age where it would make sense that Krishna could have spoken to the Sun God, who existed long ago.
This question itself is very significant. It shows two things:
1. The position of the question — it comes just as the Bhagavad Gita is entering deep philosophical discussion, showing that logical inquiry is encouraged. The Gita does not disapprove of sincere questions.
2. The timing — Krishna made the point in 4.1 that He gave this knowledge to the Sun God, but Arjuna does not interrupt immediately. He asks his question two verses later, indicating Arjuna’s thoughtful reflection and his respectful attitude even in doubt.
So why does Arjuna wait to ask his question? He wants to see if, in the further course of Krishna’s discourse, the doubt will be naturally addressed. Sometimes, when we are hearing a class and a particular point raises a question in our mind, some of us may feel inclined to immediately raise our hand and ask. In interactive discussions, that approach is often welcomed. However, at times, such questions might interrupt the flow of the speaker—especially if the speaker is following a linear, systematic explanation. In such cases, the teacher may have already anticipated the question and chosen to address it at a more appropriate point later in the discourse. Similarly, after hearing verse 4.1, Arjuna does not interrupt Krishna immediately. Instead, he waits to see if Krishna will explain how He could have spoken this knowledge to the Sun God. Following that, Krishna explains how the paramparā (disciplic succession) system was established to pass on this knowledge to the rājarṣis (saintly kings). Then, in verse 4.2, Krishna states that over time, this paramparā was broken, and in verse 4.3, He says, “Now I am speaking this knowledge to you.” With that, the explanation about the transmission of knowledge is more or less complete. Krishna’s purpose in narrating this was to convey that the knowledge He is imparting is not a new invention. It is timeless and has existed in the past as well. Not only has it existed, but Krishna Himself had originally spoken it—He is merely repeating it now.
This serves two purposes:
– It establishes the antiquity of the knowledge (it is ancient, not recently made up), and
– It confirms its authenticity (it is being given by the same person—Krishna—who originally spoke it).
Through these statements, Krishna offers assurance to Arjuna that the knowledge he is receiving is both eternal and authorized.
Now, after hearing Krishna’s initial statements, a natural question arises: is the historical detour over? Has Krishna concluded the explanation about the ancient origin of this knowledge? It might seem so. But then Krishna indicates—no, the detour isn’t over yet. Why? Because the detour into history has itself raised some new questions, and those need to be addressed. That’s why Arjuna raises his question in verse 4.4, even though the doubt stems from what Krishna said earlier in verse 4.1. Arjuna waits through verses 4.2 and 4.3 to see if Krishna will address the contradiction. But when it becomes clear that Krishna is moving on from that point and not returning to clarify how He spoke to the Sun God, Arjuna realizes he must ask. This reflects something important about Arjuna’s disposition:
– He is inquisitive, yet also patient.
– He doesn’t immediately interrupt when a doubt arises. Instead, he watches to see if the speaker—the teacher—will address it naturally as the discourse unfolds.
– When it becomes clear that the question won’t be answered in the flow, he respectfully raises it.
Even the manner in which Arjuna asks is very instructive. He says, “How am I to understand this?” Krishna has stated that He gave this knowledge to the Sun God, but Arjuna doesn’t outright challenge that statement. He simply admits that he is struggling to understand it. This is an excellent example of what communication experts refer to as a non-challenging question. Arjuna doesn’t compromise his intelligence by blindly accepting something that doesn’t make sense. At the same time, he doesn’t accuse Krishna of lying or exaggerating either.
If Arjuna had unquestioningly accepted Krishna’s words, it would mean suppressing his own reasoning. But if he had flatly rejected them, it would mean questioning Krishna’s integrity. He does neither. Instead, he takes a balanced approach:
“I’m not saying what You’re saying is wrong; I’m saying I don’t understand it yet.”
That distinction—though subtle—is powerful. It shifts the responsibility from blaming the speaker to acknowledging one’s own current limitation in understanding. This kind of humble yet honest inquiry is the foundation for meaningful dialogue. It allows us to ask difficult questions without turning the discussion into conflict. It preserves both truth and respect and does not breed acrimony. “Acrimony” means harsh feelings and harsh speech. In Arjuna’s interaction with Krishna, there is no acrimony—because his honesty is rooted in mutual respect and understanding. Arjuna respects Krishna’s authority, and after expressing that respect, he asks, “How am I to understand this?” This respectful inquiry is very instructive. Let’s look at this from a speaker’s point of view. Suppose we are speaking to an audience and we see blank faces. If we then ask, “Do you understand what I’m saying?”—the implied message might be, “Why are you so dumb that you don’t get it?” Even if unintentionally, that question can sound condescending. But if instead, we say, “Am I making myself clear?”—the responsibility shifts from the listener to the speaker. It’s far more inviting and less insulting. People are generally reluctant to admit that they don’t understand something—it feels like an admission of a lack of intelligence. But our goal as communicators isn’t to make others feel bad; our goal is to help them understand. By taking responsibility—“Am I making myself clear?”—we encourage honest feedback. Someone may then comfortably say, “This point isn’t clear, can you please explain?” In this way, our objective—clear communication—is achieved more effectively by inviting clarity rather than assigning blame.
Now coming back to Arjuna:
From a student’s point of view, he adopts this exact attitude. Rather than accusing Krishna of speaking nonsense or lying, Arjuna says essentially the same thing—“This doesn’t make sense to me”—but in a non-blaming, humble way: “How am I to understand this, that You spoke this knowledge long ago?”
When we adopt this attitude of accepting responsibility rather than assigning blame, we achieve two outcomes:
1. Frictionless communication – there’s no misunderstanding, no hurt ego.
2. Productive dialogue – people respond openly, not defensively.
If Arjuna had said, “Krishna, You’re speaking nonsense,” even though Krishna is the Supreme, such a statement in any normal interaction would provoke defensiveness. But instead, by saying “I am not able to understand,” Arjuna ensures that his doubt is addressed without causing any friction or hurting anyone’s feelings. This is a powerful principle for any meaningful and respectful conversation.
Thank you.
Leave A Comment