evam uktvā, “Having said this…”, hṛṣīkeśaṁ guḍākeśaḥ parantapaḥ |
na yotsya iti govindam uktvā tūṣṇīṁ babhūva ha ||9|| (II)
“Having said this to Hrishikesha, (to Sri Krishna; Gudakesha is Arjuna), Arjuna parantapaḥ, he spoke these words to Hrishikesha and then finally said:
na yotsya, I will not fight; iti govindam uktvā tūṣṇīṁ, (tūṣṇīṁ, is quiet), tūṣṇīṁ babhūva ha, he became quiet and silent.”
Since Arjuna wants a reply, the first “dong” of the reply is very important. It is as if it was shattering the basic argument, on which he basis himself. And what is this argument?
aśocyān anvaśocas tvaṁ prajñāvādāṁś ca bhāṣase |
gatāsūn agatāsūṁś ca nānuśocanti paṇḍitāḥ ||11|| (II)
“What you should not worry about, you are worried about, what you should worry about, you are not worried about; and you are speaking the words of the wise…” you are taking recourse to the language, na kāṅṣke rājyaṁ (I, 32) na kāṅṣke sukhāṁ, and ultimately your argument was down to this that, ‘I will not enjoy after blood splattering’. Therefore, whether he does this or not it is for kāṅṣke, sukhāṁ, because it will give him pain afterwards, ‘Therefore I don’t want to do it.’ This contradiction is involved in the argument: he uses the word of the wise but really the wise think otherwise.
‘Those who speak of renunciation…if you have really to speak the language of renunciation you should have gone to the basic premise of renunciation. Why should you renounce? On what basis should you renounce?’
Those who renounce…, Sri Krishna says… There is justification of renunciation. The whole theory of inaction, as Sri Krishna will explain later on, is not wrong. Inaction is a path, and the path can be achieved, and having gone on that path, certainly one can get rid of grief. But this is not the only path; there is another path also.
‘But even if you want to take the path of renunciation, I would have say fine, wonderful, but there are no signs in your state of consciousness, no sign in your argument which show that you are aware of the basic premise of renunciation. Why should you renounce? You want to renounce because you want to give up action. Fine! But what is the basis of renunciation of action. The basis is, that there is an inactive Reality, and you want to achieve the inactive Reality, and for that purpose ‘I want to renounce’, if you had make this statement in the very beginning, that if may be my Dharma-Adharma, anything, but I have suddenly realised that Reality is inactive and I want to achieve the supreme Reality which is inactive, which will be very fine! That would be the real paṇḍita, who says ‘I have discovered the Reality is inactive and I want to go into the state of inaction and therefore all actions whether right, wrong, everything, is to be renounced’, he does not speak all these arguments that you have given: ‘if I kill, this will happen, if I don’t kill, this will happen’, this is not the language of the one who knows the Reality and speak on the basis of the Reality.’
Therefore Sri Krishn, He says that, ‘If you had, really had your real premise, you would have said that, ‘there is a reality which is inactive and which is indestructible’. Start with that statement that there is a Reality which is inactive, but which is indestructible, and if this is the only Reality and if this Reality is indestructible, where is the question of killing or not killing. If Reality is something that cannot be killed, what are you talking about? Killing Drona, or killing Bhishma…keep your premise first, ‘Reality is inactive and indestructible’. That is what wise say, those who renounce the world, they want to attain to what?…to that which is never killed, which is indestructible.’
This is the “dong” that He gives, that is to say: if you examine the argument of Arjuna, he has not referred for one moment to the ultimate Reality. In his question, there is only the question of Dharma, Adharma, Bhishma, Drona, brothers, enjoyment and whether, ‘I shall have real enjoyment or not.’ But the one thing on which his own argument of ‘not doing, not fighting’ is in one sentence, ‘I do not wish to have happiness, I do not wish to have the kingdom.’ And behind that statement, there is hidden one premise that ‘you want to renounce, renounce for what? For attaining inactive Reality; but that inactive Reality is indestructible your whole language of killing and not killing does not arise!’
Sri Krishna introduces into the whole argument the real premise, on the basis of which Arjuna’s argument may be somewhat valid, but that the conclusion will not be valid: ‘If Reality is indestructible, then even if you destroy Drona and Bhishma, that Reality remains indestructible, so where is the question of destroying anything, it is indestructible.’ On this basis, this is the first “dong” of the argument. This is as if, crossing through all the ideas of killing, not killing, enjoyment, Dharma, Adharma, straight there is an arrow going of Sri Krishna’s argument, an opens up, a vision of a Reality which is transcendental, and which is indestructible.
He lifts up the whole argument, He introduces in the whole argument what we may called “God”.