Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita (September 2000, Super School Auroville) - Session 4 (28 September 2000)

So till yesterday our passage was easy, mainly the story and understanding the text. Now we shall make a little climbing. We now try to understand the argument, not only State's argument but understand the argument. So let us start with a few words I want to give you. First word I want to give you:


We shall see what it means. The second word, a longer word:


a still longer word:

Categorical Imperative

These three words. We should restrain ourselves to three words. Now to understand the argument of Arjuna, I will give you a ladder. So with these three words you'll be able to climb the ladder of understanding. These three words were not known to Arjuna. But the ideas that are covered under these three words are to be seen in this argument. What is Hedonism? Hedonism, I am not defining so you understand we have to have genus and differentiate. Hedonism is a theory that is a genus of Hedonism. It's a theory, T H E O R Y, theory. There are many theories in the world. Like the theory of gravitation is also a theory. A theory is a general proposition. A theory is a general proposition, a universal proposition. A statement which is true of all − that's the meaning of a theory.

So Hedonism is a theory. Now comes the differentiate. It is different from all other theories. A theory concerning what is good. Now even with regard to such theories, there are many theories of the Good. What is good? What is bad? There are many theories.

Among these theories, Hedonism maintains that pleasure is good. Hedonism is a theory according to which pleasure is good and therefore one must seek pleasure, one must try to seek pleasure and enjoyment. So this is first theory − Hedonism theory according to which pleasure is good and seeking of pleasure is good; and therefore one must seek pleasure and enjoyment.

Now, we come to the next word: Utilitarianism.

So the basic word there is utility. Utility means usefulness. So according to this theory, again, it's a theory of the good but which says that which is useful is good. According to this Theory that which is useful is good. If pleasure is useful, then pleasure is good. If pleasure is not useful then that is good, whatever is useful. Very often we say, oh, he's a good man. Why? He's very useful. That is utilitarianism. Education is good, why? Because education gives you a certificate and the certificate gives you employment. This argument is a utilitarian argument. It is a utilitarian view of education. It doesn't tell you why education is really good. Supposing education does not give you a certificate then, is education bad? That argument doesn't apply to utilitarianism. If education is useful for whatever it may be it should be useful. That is good. Now there's a deeper question: useful to whom, useful to me, useful to my group, useful to my country, useful to the world, useful to some, useful to all? These questions are also asked. So the answer of Utilitarianism is: it's a theory of the good according to which that which is useful to the maximum number of people is good, that which is useful to the maximum number of people is good. There is also a view that therefore one should seek. If you combine Hedonism and Utilitarianism, then you get a special variety of Utilitarianism. If pleasure is good then it says that one must seek the maximum pleasure of the maximum number of people. This is one view of utilitarianism: one must seek the maximum pleasure of the maximum number of people. There is a further deeper question. What is pleasure? If maximum pleasure of maximum number of people is to be sought after then a deeper question arises. What is pleasure? If you eat ice cream which is pleasant and if you fall ill thereafter, which is painful, then is eating ice cream good? Does it give you pleasure? It gives you pleasure now but gives you sickness afterwards, but not in every case. If the maximum number of people get maximum pleasure in eating ice cream without falling ill then ice cream is good for the whole society. Or you should prescribe that you should have ice cream in your society. That is called Utilitarianism. But you can easily see now that this question is quite deep; a superficial answer won't do. There are many, many things which are present now which ultimately turn out to be very bad. Then there are pleasures which are short duration, pleasures which have long duration. There are pleasures which are intense, there are pleasures which are not intense, they give you a slight pleasure but not intense pleasure. But sometimes intense pressures are having short duration and less intense pleasures may last long. That also is a fact.

Again, the question is what is pleasure? There are three kinds of pleasures: the pleasure of the senses, there are pleasures of knowledge, there are pleasures of character. Character is a stable state of virtue or virtues. Stable state of virtue or virtues is called character. You take a number of virtues like sincerity, aspiration, faithfulness, loyalty, goodwill, number of them, generosity, steadfastness, persistence, perseverance, so many virtues. So there are pleasures of character. So there are three kinds of pleasures. Now these three kinds of pleasures may also have conflict among themselves. If I say sexual pleasure, I have to forgo the pleasure of knowledge. I can't read a lot of books. I can't study. I can't dialogue with people. That kind of pleasure is gone. I may spend a lot of time or knowledge, but I don't develop virtues. In the time of difficulties you find virtues help you more than knowledge and vice versa; you develop only character but neglect knowledge and that is also not correct. So Utilitarianism is a theory which discusses all these questions. It's a theory as to what is good and prescribes that which is useful, that which is pleasant, that which tends to knowledge, that tends to character is good and then enlarge it, that which gives you maximum pleasure of maximum number of people, that which promotes maximum knowledge of maximum number of people, that which promotes maximum character of maximum number of people that is good.

Now comes the third word: Categorical Imperative.

Imperative is command. Even in grammar you must have learned the imperative mood. No? I don't know whether you learnt or not. Grammar, when you say, sit down, stand up. These words are called imperative. They make a command. Any word which expresses a command is called imperative. A command is always in the form of "should, must." "You must stand up. You must read." So all imperatives are connected with the word 'should' or 'must' or 'ought to'. Whenever you say "You must seek pleasure" is also command, imperative. You must seek maximum pleasure from the maximum number of people is also a command. But it is different from Categorical Imperative. Imperative is command but there is a categorical, that is somewhat different. Categorical is a word which is opposed to conditional. When you say it is a categorical demand there is no condition in it. It's unconditional. Conditional means that which refers to the result. If you want to succeed, then you must work hard. This is a conditional command: if you want to succeed then you must work hard. So you must work hard is conditional upon your desire to succeed. So whenever any command is made to you or whenever you say this is good which you must follow but it is conditional upon something else, it is called conditional Imperative. Now, Hedonism and Utilitarianism always give you conditional imperatives: if you want to be happy, if you want to develop character, if you want such and such a consequence then do this or you must do this. So hedonistic philosophy and utilitarian philosophy gives you commands but these commands are conditional. Now this theory, Categorical Imperative, is different from these theories. It says you must do something not because you want something else, you must do the right thing because it is right. You must do the right thing but simply because it is right. So according to this theory there are certain things which are right in themselves not because they are useful, Education is good. You must be educated. Why? Because it is good. It's a right thing not because it will give you high positions and all that. It is right in itself. It's a different level when we say that education should not be utilitarian, it means that education must be pursued for its own sake because it is good in itself, not because of certain consequences that will bring about. It is right that you are educated in itself. It is right that you exist. Why do you exist? It is right that you exist. Existence itself is right, is good. You must be generous. Why? It is good to be generous in itself. You must be sincere. Why? Because sincerity is good in itself. So when somebody says "be sincere", you ask the question: why should I be sincere? You should be sincere, it's a Categorical Imperative. We should be sincere because it is good in itself.

Now, these are the three important theories in the world, of the whole world. Whenever people say good, bad, right, wrong, you've now a mastery that nobody can go beyond these three formulas. Whenever people say, this is good, bad, right, wrong, you can ask the question: is it a Hedonistic view? Is it a Utilitarian view? Or is it a view of Categorical Imperative? Right? Very easy! Whenever people discuss right, wrong, you can easily master the arguments if you know these three ideas. You have now got a key as it were in your hands to understand any argument in which good, bad, right, wrong is discussed. You can easily now evaluate If the argument is hedonistic, it is a lower level; if it is utilitarian, it is slightly higher level; if it is Categorical Imperative, it is still at a higher level. So this is the barometer. You can judge an argument at three levels. If something is Hedonistic, Utilitarian or Categorical Imperative.

Now, the whole argument of Arjuna is connected with this question. What is right and what is wrong? That was his question when he says "I will not fight" when he says, Arjuna says, "I will not fight." This is his basic argument. Is this a conclusion? Isn't it? He said "I will not fight" and he gives reasons as to why he should not fight. Now if you examine his argument, it says "I will not fight." The origin of the argument is the sense of horror, the sense of pity. He had decided to fight and he had come to the battlefield for fighting. He decided it is good for him to fight. That was his decision, good to fight. He had come because he felt the fighting was good. So this idea of good is the central question when you try to understand the argument of Arjuna.

Now having come to the battlefield he suddenly decides it's not good. So naturally you should ask the question:

What is the hedonistic argument? What is the utilitarian argument? What is the argument of categorical imperative in all the series of arguments that he gives. That is the way in which to understand his argument. Then you are the master of his argument. Then you can find an answer. If you want to answer an argument in regard to good or bad, right or wrong, then you should always have this barometer. Whatever is argued about, is it hedonistic? Is it utilitarian? Is it categorical imperative, or something else, If there is something else.

Now, let us go through the argument. I only give the argument, the key to argument, how you judge an argument. So once again, we study the argument. All right, I read this argument again one by one and tell me what is the argument?

seeing these, my own people O Krishna, thus eager for battle, my limbs fail and my mouth is parched, my body is quivering and my hair stands on end.

Is it hedonistic argument, utilitarian argument, is it an argument at all? He is simply describing his condition but there is implicit argument in it. Although it's a description, not an argument; there is implicit argument in it. "My limbs failed. My mouth is parched. My body is quivering and my hair stands on end" is a condition of being miserable. Isn't it? What he says I am now feeling miserable, I'm unhappy, I have no pleasure in it. So he's describing a state of unhappiness, state of disgust even, not only unhappiness but even more a sense of horror, a sense of disgust. What is the motive of this disgust? What is behind it? Because of unpleasantness. That means he seeks pleasure and now pleasure is denied therefore I don't want it. Isn't that so? So this argument is basically based upon Hedonism: I must seek pleasure, I must be happy, but this condition makes me unhappy, is unpleasant therefore I reject it. So you will see here it is based upon Hedonism: I want to seek pleasure, this activity does not give me pleasure therefore I reject it. It's a hedonistic argument.

Then he describes further:

Gandiva..(that is my bow,) slips from my hand and my skin seems to be burning. I am not even able to stand and my mind seems to be whirling.

These are all conditions of being miserable, the same continuing of the same argument.

Now continue the argument. It says:

I see, O Krishna, adverse omens.

The signs which I am seeing are all adverse means the consequences of my actions will bring about unhappiness. When you say: I see bad omens means what? I think that the consequences of my actions or my surroundings will be unhappy. So not only is my condition unhappy, now the argument moves forward, even the consequences of my action, which I am going to perform will be adverse. Therefore this argument has its basis in Utilitarianism. You should do work so that the consequences are good or you should be happy. So this whole argument it's not only hedonistic, it is further utilitarian: I see adverse omens and do not see any good in slaying my own people in the battle when he says "I do not see any good" means what? "I do not see good consequences in slaying my own people in the battle." So again, this is a statement based upon Utilitarianism.

Now comes another argument: how to avoid all this undesirable things. So he says:

I desire not victory nor kingdom nor pleasures.

So he says: if because I am desiring good consequences, happy consequences, therefore, I am miserable but supposing I don't seek pleasure at all, I don't seek victory at all? Then he says:

What is kingdom to us, what enjoyment, or even life?

These are consequences? Even if I do this fighting, I will get Kingdom. All right. I'll get enjoyment. All right. I'll continue to live. All right. So what? In other words he now takes a stand which goes beyond Utilitarianism. I don't seek all this at all. I don't seek any consequences at all. Since I am not seeking anything at all, I don't need to fight. That's the consequence. That's the implication he makes. He makes an argument: I will not fight because I don't want a kingdom. But again, you can see that the whole argument is based upon Utilitarianism. Although he says that I don't want, I want to go beyond all consequences but behind it the argument is basically Utilitarianism: I will not fight and if I don't fight then I don't have any miserable condition at all. So ultimately I am seeking the results which will really be pleasant to me. He's almost hedonistic again and utilitarian, so he pleads that one should go beyond hedonism, one should go beyond utilitarianism, but behind it the argument is because I don't want to be miserable. There is also a consequence. So you can see the complexity of the argument and when Krishna will answer, he's a master mind, Sri Krishna's mind is sharp; it knows very well all the complexities of the human mind, the methods of argument and he'll pick out all these things. You say you do not want this but still you want to be quite happy. What about that condition that you want to be happy, it's hedonistic. Although you use a language which seems to be very high, very noble, very great − I don't want kingdom, I don't want pleasure but why? Because you don't want to be miserable. Sri Krishna will point out the weakness of the argument afterwards and you will appreciate Sri Krishna's argument much better if you know these three words. Normally people argue only on the grounds of these three words about right and wrong. Wherever there is a question of right or wrong, you can apply these three arguments − hedonistic, utilitarian or categorical imperative.

Now he expounds his argument further and you see the inner motivation which is still utilitarian. He says:

Those for whose sake we desire kingdom, enjoyments and pleasures are all standing here in the battle.

"For whose sake" − that is again utility. We seek pleasure for whose sake? So that we can enjoy it better with all the people, maximum pleasure of the maximum number of people. This is the utilitarian argument. You should seek the maximum pleasure of the maximum number of people. So he says that if I fight there will be pleasure for me but not the maximum pleasure for me because maximum pleasure lies in sharing of the maximum pleasure with maximum number of people but these maximum number of people will be killed. So sharing with them will be diminished. So there'll be no happiness. So once again you can see it is an argument of Utilitarianism. You can see in what horizon's the argument of Arjuna is moving. It is treading only on a limited scale of argument. Basically, he wants pleasure, he wants stability of pleasure, as long as pleasure can be obtained, no miserable condition at all, and he wants maximum pleasure of maximum number of people. It is a hedonistic argument basically and a utilitarian argument.

Now he continues the argument. Says:

these I would not like to slay, though myself slain

"I would not like", the word like is very important. "Like" means I would not be happy, I would have no pleasure, I would not be happy, I would not have pleasure to slay. So because slaying will not give me pleasure therefore I should not do it. He's seeking his own pleasure. So basically the argument of Arjuna even though it seems to be something very grand when he says "I don't want kingdom, I don't want pleasures, I don't want enjoyment, I don't want to succeed" but why? Basically what is the reason? I would not like to slay because if I slay them my pleasure will be so much diminished. I cannot share the pleasure with the maximum number of people which is my real pleasure. He says even for the kingdom of the three worlds, even if I get three worlds pleasure, is nothing because I can't share the pleasure with my people with whom I would like to share that is my greatest pleasure. So he says, what's the point in winning three kingdoms?

Now comes the next argument:

..what pleasure can be ours on killing these sons of Dhritarashtra?

Sons of Dhritarashtra are all Kauravas. So he says: what pleasure can be ours on killing these sons of Dhritarashtra, what pleasure? Again the question of pleasure: what pleasure can be ours?

But now comes the next sentence which is very important:

..sin alone would take hold of us.

Now the argument changes. The concept of sin is very important. Last time, yesterday also I spoke of this word sin. Sin has nothing to do with pleasure or pain in itself, or either my own pleasure or maximum pleasure of the maximum number of people.

What is sin? I will give you a general definition of sin. Sin is an action that proceeds from deviation from your origin. There is an origin of each one. Every individual has an origin when you deviate from your origin, when you try to cut your connection with your origin, if not physically at least mentally, when you cut your origin, when you cut yourself from your origin, and after cutting yourself from your origin whatever action proceeds is called sin. Now, you can see here the whole argument changes. Yes in Christianity also the same meaning we can apply. Hell that I'm coming to. First let us try to understand the word sin. Any action that proceeds from deviation from separating oneself from your origin, whatever that origin may be, then that action is called a sin. Now, it does not depend upon whether it gives you pleasure or no pleasure, it doesn't give you any whether maximum pleasure or maximum number of people, this is useful or not useful. No! The whole argument now is lifted up. It brings in the idea of sin. He says this action that I am going to do can be done only if I deviate from my origin. Now the argument is no more whether I like or not like.

Pardon? That's right, being of your person or you may have many origins; you may think of many origins. My mother is my origin. Now when I revolt against my mother and deviate from her and do some action people say it is sinful, not because pleasure or pain, that doesn't arise, that question doesn't arise merely because your reaction proceeds similarly if I deviate if I say God is my origin and I separate myself from God and then do action after separating myself from God, It's sin. Even the act of separating yourself from God itself is sin. In Christianity, that is the idea. This is called original sin. In Christianity, there is an idea of original sin. The original sin is when one deviated from the Divine to deviate yourself from the Divine, who is your origin, from God who is the origin. And it is said according to Christianity that the original man under temptation, he ate the fruit of knowledge against the will of the Divine and once it happened he fell from Paradise. That is the original sin. There was a will of the Divine, it was opposed under some temptation, deviated from the will of the Divine and that is the original sin and everything that happens now in the world is sinful. So according to Christianity we are living in a constant sense of sin. That is a Christian idea of sin.

Yes, pardon? Yes. also..

So he says if I kill my brothers, if I kill all these people who are there, this kind of action can come about from me only if I have deviated from my origin. My origin is my grandfather and now I'm here ready to kill my grandfather. Now the question is not whether it gives me pleasure or pain or anything of the kind, to deviate from my origin is in itself sinful. Now this arises from what? From a general proposition − you must not deviate from your origin. This is a categorical imperative. You must not deviate from your origin. Now here there is no question of seeking pleasure or maximum pleasure of the maximum number of people, no. Even if it gives you pleasure to deviate from your origin, you must not do it. Why? Because it is not right in itself, it is wrong in itself. This categorical imperative is an imperative − you must not do this. Why? Because it is not right in itself, intrinsically it is not right.

Of course, this also is turned now into utilitarianism. Even this basic argument of sin is very often turned into utilitarianism. If somebody says why should I not commit sin? The real answer is you must not do it because it's not right. That should be the answer. But people don't understand that answer, they don't appreciate this answer. So they say if you commit sin, you will go to hell. If you commit sin you'll go to Hell and Hell is a fire and then the whole theory of Hellfire has come into existence in the world and many people who preach they want people to do the right thing by telling them by creating fear in their mind. If you do something wrong, they don't argue is wrong therefore don't do it. No, that is not their argument. If you do a wrong thing, you will go to hell and there is an eternal hell, not only you'll go to hell it will be eternal hell, forever and ever and ever, you'll go to hell and remain there. There was one preacher who used to say: "imagine a little burning on your skin. How do you feel? Do you like it? No. Now imagine that your whole body is on fire. Will you like it? No, much worse, isn't it? Suppose you are thrown into a pool of oil which is burning. What will happen to you? Would you like it? It's much worse to be thrown into the pool of oil which is burning. How will you find it? Now suppose it is only for a second, even that, how horrible it is. Even for a second. Suppose for a minute, suppose it is for one hour, suppose it is for one year, suppose ten years, but suppose it is forever and ever and ever. Therefore don't commit sin. Therefore do be a good child."

This is the kind of teaching which has been quite widespread in the world.

To make people virtuous, this is the argument which is given.

Not the argument of the categorical imperative. It is a categorical imperative which is in origin but which is made utilitarian for the sake of propagating the good action. That is why many people in the West and in the East have denounced this whole idea of sin, and denounced the idea of hell and eternal hell. That is why in Christianity it is said if you want to avoid it, be good. And what is the point in being good? Accept Christ as your saviour.

If you accept Christ, that is the only good thing. If you do that, then this consequence will not come about.

Now here Arjuna argues and says that if I kill my origin, that is my grandfather who is also on this battlefield, opposed to me, all my brothers who are also derived from my origin and if I kill them, sin will fall upon us. It's also a Hindu idea, also this sin is there, paapa as it is called in Sanskrit. This paapa, there will be sin. Only in India, there is no idea of eternal hell. That hell will come, afterwards you'll be in the hell, it is very very troublesome but you can afterwards come out of it. There is no idea of eternal hell. In any case this idea of Hell, sin, has been present in many religions. And here also you will see here:

..sin alone would take hold of us in our slaying these hostile aggressors. It is not therefore befitting of us to kill these sons of Dhritarashtra, our own kinsmen.

So now here the argument is: it's not right that I should kill my people because sin will come. Killing my brothers, killing my grandfather in itself is wrong. Therefore if I do it, it would be sinful. Therefore, I'm not doing it. So here so far the argument is only based upon categorical imperative: it's not right for me to kill some people who belong to my origin. But again, he falls into Hedonism or Utilitarianism in the argument.

How can we be happy having slain our own people?

So you can see that after using the word sin now he goes to another level of argument, again utilitarian argument. How can you be happy having slain our own people?

Now comes another argument: to commit sin with knowledge or to commit sin without knowledge, without intention. He says:

..these people who are my enemies. They also want to kill us therefore they also will be committing sin, but they are ignorant; They don't know that they are going to commit sin.

But we, at least I have now become awakened and I now see that it's a sin. Having known that it is a sin to commit such sin is much worse. Those who don't know it's a sin and yet commit it, there is no intention of committing sin. But in my case I have now come to realize that I will be committing sin therefore it is a double sin as it were. To commit sin just like that is all right, is less harmful, but having known that I am committing sin is like Macbeth and Lady Macbeth murdering the king with an intention to kill him. With a knowledge, this would be a murder. So he says:

..even if these, these enemies, because their consciousness is clouded by greed they don't see any guilt in the destruction of the family. They don't see any crime but why should we who have the wisdom, who have the knowledge and also the knowledge to draw back from such a sin, I am capable of drawing back (when) I am not obliged to commit this sin. I know it is a sin. I am not obliged to commit a sin therefore having done all this knowledge about it, having had all knowledge about it, how can I commit to sin?

Now, he says again an argument in which utilitarianism and categorical imperative both are mixed up. When the mind is bewildered, you don't keep even on one argument, you fluctuate between one argument and the other, you mix up many arguments because the mind is not stable. It mixes up lots of ideas. So sometimes it is pure Hedonism, sometimes it is Utilitarianism, sometimes Categorical Imperative. These three arguments are constantly fluctuating. So when I say let us examine the argument we must see which argument pertains to which level, then you will see which argument is missing. These three arguments are all the time fluctuating but there is one argument which is not present at all in this whole argument. So in his answer Sri Krishna will tell him which argument is absent and how his arguments are all mixed and from where that mixture arises and he points out these mixtures of his ideas arise from weakness, cowardice. That is his answer, Sri Krishna's very first answer is: you have become seized by weakness, do not yield to impotence. He says: yield not to impotence. This is the sharp vision of Sri Krishna and is able to detect cowardice immediately in the argument. Sri Krishna was not only a philosopher but a man who had the highest wisdom so he could immediately penetrate into all these arguments and cuts essence of this argument at one stroke and he says what is his weakness and he says you look as if you are wise man, that is he says you speak the words of a wise man, but really wise people speak quite differently, not like you. Then he will point out how a wise man will argue.

So here he says: the annihilation of the family the eternal Dharma of the family is destroyed with the collapse of dharma, adharma overtakes the whole family.

Now he brings another idea of Eternal Dharma, up till now it was enjoyment, pleasure, sin. Now comes a new idea in the argument.

In the annihilation of the family the eternal dharma of the family is destroyed.

Now Dharma, I have discussed with you what is Dharma − is a law of life which keeps your life sustained and I said that actually Dharma is based upon states of consciousness, the states of consciousness which are stabilized in the form of virtues that is Dharma. Dharma is a state of consciousness, which is stabilized in virtues. So there are states of consciousness of virtues which are eternal. So this eternal Dharma will be destroyed. Now if Eternal Dharma is destroyed, adharma will arise. Now, this is Utilitarianism, a consequence will follow.

Now he says further:

When adharma predominates, the women of the family become corrupt.

This is also the argument of Utilitarianism: this would be the consequence. Whenever we refer to the consequence, not in itself, it is Utilitarianism. The women of the family become corrupt, the women corrupted confusion of order arises, all this is utilitarian argument but the idea of Dharma itself is categorical imperative. So there's a mixture. He doesn't say that if adharma arises it is itself wrong, in itself, but no, if adharma arises then women of the family become corrupt. This is the consequence. It is an argument again of Utilitarianism. If you had to say adharma itself is bad in itself, it will be an idea of categorical imperative. But he says if adharma arises then this consequence will follow which is not bad, which is bad then it is a theory of Utilitarianism.

Then he says now this confusion leads to hell. So Arjuna also speaks of hell: ..this confusion leads to hell. As a result of that, the ancestors fall. If you go to hell, not only you go to hell but you bring, drag, also your origin also into the hell, which is worse. If you alone are to go to hell it's all right, but if you bring also your ancestors also into hell, it's much worse. Again, the argument is utilitarian.

Then he says:

And men whose family's dharma is lost they live for an indefinite period in hell. It's something like the Christian religion. For not forever but indefinite period, your living in hell will become for an indefinite period. You can't terminate easily.

And he says:

..thus we have heard

This is what you have heard. Now so far, you have seen that all these arguments basically are hedonistic and utilitarian. Only one argument was from categorical imperative, namely the idea that we should commit sin but then immediately after arguing on the base of categorical imperative, he again turns into all the arguments which are utilitarian.

He says:

Alas, a great sin have we set ourselves to committing, we who are endeavouring to kill our own people from greed of the pleasures of kingship.

What a sin we are going to commit only because we desire pleasures of kingdom, looks very wise. So why should we have pleasures of Kingdoms, Because if you have pleasures of kingdom then we shall have a pain of Hell ultimately. It is also equally utilitarian. If you have this pleasure so that you avoid lots of other pains. So basically you are looking for greater pleasure because pleasures of the Kingdom are only short-lived. The pain of hell is long, of indefinite period therefore avoid it. Even though it is not as pleasant as the present pleasure of enjoying the kingdom now, but on the whole it's a greater pleasure.

Then he says: is more for my welfare.

He said:

. It is more for my welfare that the sons of Dhritarashtra, armed, should slay me, unarmed

Even if I am now unarmed, I will not fight at all. Let them kill me. It is much better for me because I won't go to hell. So the burden of the whole argument is basically utilitarian. So in the scale of arguments, you can see it's not a very high level of argument. It is flown in a language which seems very high.

I think we will stop here today. We have gone beyond the time.