कथं न ज्ञेयमस्माभिः पापादस्मान्निवर्तितुम्। कुलक्षयकृतं दोषं प्रपश्यद्भिर्जनार्दन॥
kathaṃ na jñeyam asmābhiḥ pāpād asmān nivartitum / kula-kṣaya-kṛtaṃ doṣaṃ prapaśyadbhir janārdana
We can see this is wrong — why would we do it anyway?
Word by word (5)
- katham na jñeyam asmābhiḥ
- — why should we not know / how should we not understand · Arjuna shifts from declaration ('we should not fight') to rhetorical question: 'why shouldn't we — who can clearly see the consequences — turn away from this sin?'
- pāpāt asmān nivartitum
- — to turn away from this sin / to refrain from evil
- kula-kṣaya-kṛtam doṣam
- — the evil arising from destruction of the family
- prapaśyadbhiḥ
- — by those who clearly see / by those with clear perception
- janārdana
- — O Janardana — Krishna
'O Janardana — we can see clearly that destroying our family is evil. So why would we not understand that we must turn away from this sin?'
A modern analogy
Someone about to make a destructive decision pauses and says: 'I can see this is going to hurt everyone. Why would I do it?' Arjuna is making the argument that moral clarity creates obligation — if you can see the harm, you are more responsible, not less, for preventing it.
Take with you
- Moral clarity (prapaśyadbhiḥ — seeing clearly) creates responsibility to act on what you see.
- Arjuna's rhetorical question is aimed partly at himself — it is as much self-persuasion as argument.
- This verse links back to V37 (the Kauravas are blinded by greed; we are not) — the contrast strengthens the obligation.
Verse 38 pivots Arjuna's argument from personal grief (V28-35) to social/moral reasoning (V38-43). He is now making a structural argument: those with clear perception have an obligation to turn from sin. The key word is 'prapaśyadbhiḥ' — those who see completely (pra + paśyanti). It echoes Krishna's later injunction to Arjuna in Ch.11: 'paśya' (behold). Seeing is the beginning of wisdom — and in the Gita, genuine seeing always creates the obligation to act rightly from what is seen.
Karma-Yoga lens
Tilak reads this verse as Arjuna correctly identifying the causal chain: perception → responsibility → action. This is the Karma Yoga framework in embryo. The problem is Arjuna concludes 'therefore don't act.' The Gita will flip this: perception → responsibility → right action, not inaction.
Modern parallels
The psychological concept of 'moral disengagement' (Bandura) describes mechanisms by which people override moral perception: dehumanizing the other, diffusing responsibility, displacing agency. Arjuna is doing the opposite — he is refusing to morally disengage. His argument is: we see, therefore we are responsible, therefore we must not act destructively.
Public-domain translations (4) compare all →
Why should not we know enough to turn back from this sin — we who see clearly the evil in the destruction of the family, O Janardana? [1]
O Janardana, why should not we, who clearly see the evil of the destruction of the family, learn to turn away from this sin? [4]
Why should not we, who clearly see the evil arising from the destruction of families, O Janardana, learn to refrain from committing this sin? [6]
Why should not we, O Janardana, who clearly see the evil in the destruction of the family, learn to refrain from this sin? [9]
This verse speaks to
Where this thread continues
Greed blinds the other side — but we can still see. That sight is both burden and responsibility.
When families collapse, the traditions that hold communities together collapse with them.
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.
Whenever dharma declines and adharma rises — I project Myself forth. The divine responds to every crisis.
I am Time, the world-destroyer — even without you, none of these warriors shall survive; they are already slain!