GitaChapter 1Verse 35

Gita 1.35

Arjuna Vishada Yoga

एतान्न हन्तुमिच्छामि घ्नतोऽपि मधुसूदन । अपि त्रैलोक्यराज्यस्य हेतोः किं नु महीकृते ॥३५॥

etān na hantum icchāmi ghnato 'pi madhusūdana api trailokya-rājyasya hetoḥ kiṁ nu mahī-kṛte

In essence: Even when others are ready to kill me, I choose not to kill them—for what is sovereignty over three worlds worth when bought with the blood of those I love?

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

Sadhak-Guru Dialogue

Sadhak: "Guruji, Arjuna says he won't kill even if they kill him. Isn't self-defense a right? Why surrender it?"

Guru: "Self-defense against strangers is one thing. But can you defend yourself against your grandfather? If your mother attacked you, would you fight back with full force? Arjuna is not making a universal statement about self-defense—he's speaking about this specific situation where the attackers are beloved."

Sadhak: "But if he doesn't fight, the Pandavas lose everything—kingdom, honor, family."

Guru: "Yes. This is the dilemma. If he fights, he loses his teachers and elders through killing them. If he doesn't fight, he loses everything through their victory. There is no option where he doesn't lose. The Gita's task is to change his relationship to loss itself, not to show him a loss-free path."

Sadhak: "He calls Krishna 'Madhusudana'—the demon-slayer. Is he mocking Krishna?"

Guru: "Not mocking—testing. He's saying: 'You killed demons, so you understand justified killing. But surely you can see these are not demons.' It's an implicit argument: 'Your precedent doesn't apply here.' What Arjuna doesn't yet understand is that the demon to be slain is not outside—it's his own confusion."

Sadhak: "The three worlds—is that literal or metaphorical?"

Guru: "In the cosmology of the Mahabharata, quite literal: heaven (svarga), earth (bhumi), and the underworld (patala). But the meaning is 'everything imaginable.' Arjuna is saying: 'You could offer me rule over the entire universe, and I would still refuse to kill my grandfather for it.' This is not a negotiation—it's a total rejection of cost-benefit thinking."

Sadhak: "That sounds enlightened—rejecting worldly gain. So is Arjuna spiritually advanced here?"

Guru: "He looks advanced, but he's actually stuck. True renunciation comes from fullness—seeing through desire because you've realized something greater. Arjuna's renunciation comes from despair—he doesn't want things because everything seems poisoned. The external behavior looks similar; the internal state is completely different. Krishna will help him find action from fullness rather than paralysis from despair."

Sadhak: "So this verse is the very bottom—the lowest point?"

Guru: "Precisely. He has refused everything: victory, kingdom, pleasure, life, cosmic sovereignty. There is nothing left to want. This is the zero point from which the Gita's teaching can begin. You cannot teach someone who thinks they still have options. Arjuna has exhausted all options. Now he's ready to listen."

Sadhak: "I've felt that despair—when nothing seems worth doing."

Guru: "Then you know Arjuna's state. And you also know that from that zero point, something new can emerge—or you can simply collapse. The Gita exists to show the emergence. From 'I don't want anything' can come either depression or liberation. The difference is guidance."

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

🌅 Daily Practice

🌅 Morning

Consider your strongest 'I would never' statement—something you believe you would refuse to do regardless of reward. Now examine: is this principle born from wisdom (understanding why it's wrong) or from attachment (it would hurt someone you love)? Arjuna's 'never' comes from attachment, not wisdom. Both can lead to the same behavior; only one leads to freedom.

☀️ Daytime

Today, if you face a conflict where 'winning' would harm a relationship, pause and ask: 'Is victory worth more than connection?' You probably won't face Arjuna's extreme dilemma, but small versions appear constantly—arguments where being right destroys intimacy, competitions where winning wounds friendship. Notice your actual priorities in action.

🌙 Evening

Write about a time when you chose relationship over achievement, or achievement over relationship. How did it feel afterward? Neither choice is always right—the Gita will not tell Arjuna to simply surrender. But it will teach him to choose consciously rather than from confusion. Reflecting on your past choices builds this consciousness.

Common Questions

Arjuna is the greatest warrior. His duty is to fight, not to philosophize about whether he wants to. Isn't he betraying his dharma?
This is exactly the tension. His kshatriya dharma demands fighting; his human conscience refuses it. The Gita doesn't resolve this by simply saying 'follow your dharma'—that would be too easy. It transforms Arjuna's understanding of what dharma actually is and what action actually means. Simple rule-following is not the Gita's teaching; conscious integration of duty and wisdom is.
If Arjuna refused to fight, wouldn't the war simply not happen? Why didn't he just walk away?
The war would happen without him—but the Pandavas would certainly lose. His brothers would still fight; they would just die. Arjuna's refusal doesn't prevent war; it only ensures his side's defeat and his own survival at the cost of abandoning his brothers. This is not a live option, which is why his crisis is so acute. He cannot prevent the war; he can only choose whether to participate.
The phrase 'even for sovereignty of three worlds' seems exaggerated. No one offered him that. Why mention it?
Rhetorical escalation makes his point irrefutable. If he wouldn't kill family for cosmic sovereignty, then obviously he won't kill them for mere earthly kingdom. By first refusing the maximum possible prize, the earthly kingdom becomes trivially small by comparison. This isn't exaggeration—it's argument by extreme case, a common technique in Indian philosophical discourse.