GitaChapter 1Verse 39

Gita 1.39

Arjuna Vishada Yoga

कथं न ज्ञेयमस्माभिः पापादस्मान्निवर्तितुम् । कुलक्षयकृतं दोषं प्रपश्यद्भिर्जनार्दन ॥३९॥

kathaṁ na jñeyam asmābhiḥ pāpād asmān nivartitum kula-kṣaya-kṛtaṁ doṣaṁ prapaśyadbhir janārdana

In essence: Those who see clearly are obligated by their vision—knowing the sin of destruction, how can we who see it proceed to commit it?

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

Sadhak-Guru Dialogue

Sadhak: "Arjuna's argument seems airtight. If we see the sin, we should avoid it. Isn't that simple wisdom?"

Guru: "It seems airtight, yes. But notice what Arjuna doesn't see: the sin of letting the Kauravas continue their tyranny, the suffering of the subjects under their rule, the cosmic need for dharma to be restored. His vision is real but limited."

Sadhak: "So even clear seeing can be partial?"

Guru: "Always. This is why humility accompanies true wisdom. Arjuna sees deeply into one dimension—the horror of killing kinsmen—but he's temporarily blind to other dimensions. Complete vision would hold all the consequences in balance."

Sadhak: "But how can anyone see everything? That seems impossible."

Guru: "It is impossible for the individual ego. This is precisely why Arjuna needs Krishna—the avatar, the One who does see everything. The Gita's teaching is not 'figure it out yourself' but 'surrender to a larger vision that can hold what you cannot.'"

Sadhak: "So the lesson is that our moral vision, however clear, is always incomplete?"

Guru: "Yes. And acting from incomplete vision with complete certainty is one definition of fanaticism. The humble soul acts, but holds their certainty lightly, knowing they might be wrong. Arjuna is too certain in this moment—certain that he's right to refrain."

Sadhak: "But in daily life, we have to act without seeing everything. How do we proceed?"

Guru: "We act from our best understanding while remaining open to correction. We hold our views firmly enough to act but loosely enough to change. This is the 'yoga' the Gita will teach—engaged action without ego's rigidity."

Sadhak: "I think I sometimes hold my views too tightly. When I'm sure I'm right, I stop listening."

Guru: "Then you have found something valuable in this verse. Arjuna's 'prapaśyadbhiḥ'—his clear seeing—became a cage when it stopped remaining open. True seeing remains curious, asks 'What might I be missing?' even while acting decisively."

Sadhak: "So Arjuna is asking the wrong question? He should ask not 'Shouldn't we who see refrain?' but 'What else might I need to see?'"

Guru: "Beautifully put. And that is essentially what Krishna's teaching will offer: not a correction of Arjuna's facts but an expansion of his vision to include dimensions he has been unable to perceive. The answer to a partial view is not refutation but completion."

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

🌅 Daily Practice

🌅 Morning

Before beginning your day, identify one area where you feel morally certain. Then deliberately look for what you might be missing—what consequence you haven't considered, what perspective you haven't included. Write down: 'My view is... but I might not be seeing...' Practice holding clarity and humility together.

☀️ Daytime

When you encounter a situation where you feel clearly 'right,' pause and imagine someone making the opposite argument with equal conviction. What would they say? What are they seeing that you might not be? This is not about abandoning your position but testing its completeness.

🌙 Evening

Reflect on a time when you were completely certain about something and later discovered you were wrong or only partially right. What did you learn from that experience about the limits of your own perception? How might that apply to current certainties?

Common Questions

If Arjuna's argument is logical and coherent, why is it wrong?
It's not wrong so much as incomplete. Arjuna's logic is: 'I see X, X is a sin, therefore I must avoid X.' This is valid as far as it goes. But he's not seeing: 'If I avoid X, Y happens, and Y may also be a sin.' He's seeing one consequence while ignoring others. The error is not in his logic but in the limited data his logic operates on. Krishna will expand his awareness to include what he's missing.
What does 'nivartitum' (to turn back) mean practically? Is Arjuna proposing to leave the battlefield?
Yes, in this moment Arjuna is arguing for withdrawal—not just personal withdrawal but collective refusal to fight. He's saying: we Pandavas should refuse to participate in this carnage. Of course, practically speaking, this would mean surrendering the kingdom forever, living in exile, and allowing the Kauravas' unjust rule to continue indefinitely. Arjuna isn't thinking through these consequences yet.
Why does Arjuna use 'Janārdana' again? He used this name in verse 36 too.
Janārdana appears twice in this section (1.36 and 1.39), forming a literary frame around Arjuna's argument. The name means 'one who causes distress to (wicked) men' or 'one who is prayed to by all beings.' Arjuna is invoking Krishna's role as protector and liberator, subtly asking: if you cause distress to the wicked, why must I be the instrument of that distress? Can't you find another way? The repetition emphasizes that Arjuna is pleading, not just arguing.