यद्यप्येते न पश्यन्ति लोभोपहतचेतसः। कुलक्षयकृतं दोषं मित्रद्रोहे च पातकम्॥
yady apy ete na paśyanti lobhopahata-cetasaḥ / kula-kṣaya-kṛtaṃ doṣaṃ mitra-drohe ca pātakam
Greed blinds the other side — but we can still see. That sight is both burden and responsibility.
Word by word (5)
- yadi api ete
- — even though they
- na paśyanti
- — do not see / are unable to see
- lobha-upahata-cetasaḥ
- — whose minds are overcome by greed · 'Lobha' — greed, covetousness. Arjuna identifies greed as the specific faculty-destroyer in Duryodhana's camp. He is not blind from ignorance but from lobha — a morally culpable state.
- kula-kṣaya-kṛtam doṣam
- — the evil arising from the destruction of the family
- mitra-drohe ca pātakam
- — and the sin of treachery toward friends
'Even though they cannot see the evil of destroying their family — because greed has overtaken their minds — even if they cannot see the sin of treachery toward friends...'(The verse continues into V38: '...why should we, who can see, commit this sin?')
A modern analogy
When someone in your team or family is making a destructive decision because they're blinded by desire for a particular outcome, the fact that they can't see it does not excuse you from seeing it. Moral clarity, once present, is a responsibility. Arjuna knows this.
Take with you
- Greed (lobha) specifically named as the faculty-destroyer — not stupidity, not ignorance, but moral choice corrupting perception.
- The ability to see moral consequences that others cannot creates responsibility, not just advantage.
- Arjuna maintains moral clarity about the Kauravas while grieving — he knows they are wrong without hatred.
Verse 37 is Arjuna's most analytical moment in Chapter 1: he correctly diagnoses the Kaurava problem as lobha (greed) — and correctly notes that their blindness does not transfer moral responsibility to him. His argument is: 'They cannot see because greed has destroyed their faculty of moral perception. We can see. Therefore we must not commit this sin.' This is good reasoning. The error is in the conclusion he will draw from it. Arjuna uses this moral clarity to justify inaction — 'we should not fight.' The Gita's counter is: your moral clarity is the reason to act with discipline and dharma, not the reason to step back. The one who sees must act from what they see, not withdraw because the other side cannot see.
Karma-Yoga lens
Tilak's reading: Arjuna has correctly identified the problem (Kaurava greed) and correctly identified that moral clarity creates responsibility. His error is equating 'act' with 'become like them' (egoic, greedy action). The Karma Yoga teaching will show him that there is a third option: act from dharma, without greed or ego, for the welfare of the larger order.
Public-domain translations (3) compare all →
Even if these, with intelligence overpowered by greed, see no evil in the destruction of the family and no sin in treachery to friends... [4]
Though these men, whose hearts are overleapt by greed, perceive not the sin of the destruction of families and the wickedness of treachery to friends... [6]
Even though these — their minds overpowered by greed — see no evil in the destruction of the family and no sin in treachery to friends... [9]
This verse speaks to
Where this thread continues
We can see this is wrong — why would we do it anyway?
The enemy is desire and anger, born of rajas — all-devouring, all-sinful. Know this as your internal enemy.
I am the strength of the strong, free from craving — and the desire in beings that does not conflict with dharma.
Three gates to hell, destructive of the self: kāma, krodha, lobha. Therefore abandon this triad.
A blind king asks what happened on the battlefield — and the Gita begins.
Arjuna sees his own people ready to die — and his body breaks before his mind can argue.