GitaChapter 1Verse 33

Gita 1.33

Arjuna Vishada Yoga

येषामर्थे काङ्क्षितं नो राज्यं भोगाः सुखानि च । त इमेऽवस्थिता युद्धे प्राणांस्त्यक्त्वा धनानि च ॥३३॥

yeṣām arthe kāṅkṣitaṁ no rājyaṁ bhogāḥ sukhāni ca ta ime 'vasthitā yuddhe prāṇāṁs tyaktvā dhanāni ca

In essence: We claim we earn for our families, achieve for our loved ones—yet here they stand, ready to die, making all our excuses for ambition suddenly transparent.

A conversation between a seeker and guide to help you feel this verse deeply

Sadhak-Guru Dialogue

Sadhak: "Guruji, Arjuna says 'those for whose sake we desire kingdom.' But didn't the Pandavas fight for justice, not just for their family?"

Guru: "Justice was the banner; family was the motivation. Be honest about your own life—when you work hard, is it really for abstract principles, or for the concrete faces of those you love? Arjuna is simply admitting what most people hide: our highest ideals are often fueled by our most personal attachments."

Sadhak: "Is that wrong? To be motivated by family?"

Guru: "Not wrong—but limited. And it becomes contradictory when the family itself becomes the obstacle. Arjuna wanted kingdom for his family; now his family stands between him and the kingdom. His motivation has turned into his obstacle. This happens more often than you think."

Sadhak: "He says they've already given up their lives and wealth. But they're still alive—they haven't died yet."

Guru: "Anyone who enters a battle has already given up their life in intention. The body may survive, but the attachment to survival is released the moment you pick up the weapon. Arjuna sees that Bhishma and Drona are already dead in a sense—they have accepted death. Killing them is not taking something they're holding; it's just completing what they've already begun."

Sadhak: "That makes it sadder, not easier."

Guru: "Exactly. If they were clinging to life, killing them might feel like defeating an enemy. But they're willing to die for their cause. They're not villains; they're devotees of their own dharma. Killing devotion is harder than killing villainy."

Sadhak: "So both sides think they're right?"

Guru: "Both sides are right by their own standards. That's the tragedy of dharma-sankata—when two legitimate duties collide. The Kauravas had the legitimate king; the Pandavas had the legitimate claim. Who is right? The question cannot be answered at the level where it's asked. This is why Krishna will elevate the discussion beyond right and wrong."

Sadhak: "I've worked so hard 'for my family.' Hearing Arjuna, I wonder if that was always honest."

Guru: "It was probably both honest and dishonest—as most human motivation is. We do love our families; we also use that love as justification for ambitions we might otherwise question. Arjuna's crisis is also an opportunity for self-honesty. What do you actually want, and who are you actually doing it for?"

Sadhak: "I'm not sure anymore."

Guru: "Good. That uncertainty is more honest than false clarity. Arjuna's confusion is more truthful than Duryodhana's certainty. Keep asking."

Did this resonate with you? Share it with someone who needs to hear this.

🌅 Daily Practice

🌅 Morning

Consider something you claim to do 'for others'—your work, your sacrifices, your ambitions. Ask honestly: 'Would I still do this if the others didn't exist?' This question reveals how much of our 'for them' is actually 'for me, justified by them.' There's no shame in wanting things for yourself; there's only confusion in misrepresenting your motives.

☀️ Daytime

When you feel conflict with someone you love, notice if your position is based on 'principle' or personal desire dressed as principle. Arjuna wanted kingdom 'for family'—but the family was right there opposing him. How often do we fight 'for' people against their own wishes? Today, let one 'principle' go and simply ask what the other person actually wants.

🌙 Evening

Write about a time when your goals and your loved ones' wellbeing came into conflict. How did you resolve it? Did you sacrifice the goal or sacrifice (some) relationship? Arjuna is facing this conflict at maximum intensity—but we all face smaller versions regularly. Understanding your pattern helps you face the next conflict more consciously.

Common Questions

The Pandavas had been wronged and exiled unjustly. Weren't they fighting for justice rather than just family benefit?
They were fighting for both, and the two were intertwined. Justice demanded their kingdom be returned; love demanded their family's honor be restored. But Arjuna's point stands: the very people for whom justice was sought are now enemies. The Kauravas were also family. Justice against family still kills family. The abstract principle of 'justice' becomes terribly concrete when it requires specific deaths.
If people on both sides were ready to die, doesn't that just mean war was inevitable and Arjuna should accept it?
Readiness to die doesn't justify killing. Both armies being willing to sacrifice doesn't answer whether the sacrifice is necessary or right. Arjuna is asking a deeper question: even if they're willing to die, should I be the one to kill them? Their willingness doesn't resolve his ethical crisis—it deepens it, because it shows they're noble people, not cowards who deserve contempt.
Arjuna seems to be overthinking. Soldiers don't philosophize in the middle of battle—they act.
The Gita is precisely about what happens when a soldier does philosophize. The fact that most soldiers don't think deeply doesn't mean they shouldn't. Arjuna's crisis represents the thoughtful warrior's dilemma—one who has both the skill to kill and the depth to question. The Gita values this combination. Unthinking action is not praised; conscious action is the goal.