This shloka continues Arjuna’s argument about the evils of war.

In the previous shloka, Arjuna said that the Kauravas do not see the evil caused by family destruction because their minds are overpowered by greed. Now he turns the argument toward himself and the Pāṇḍavas.

He says, kathaṁ na jñeyam asmābhiḥ — “Why should it not be understood by us?” or “Why should we not decide?” Arjuna feels that the Kauravas may not see clearly, but the Pāṇḍavas do see clearly. Therefore, he thinks they should make a different choice.

What is that choice?

asmāt pāpāt nivartitum — “to withdraw from this sin.” Here pāpam [sin] refers, in Arjuna’s mind, to the war that will cause family destruction. He is saying, “This war involves the destruction of families. Since we see that, why should we not withdraw from it?”

Then he says, kulakṣayakṛtaṁ doṣaṁ prapaśyadbhiḥ — “by us who clearly see the evil caused by family destruction.” Kulam means family. Kṣayaḥ means destruction. Doṣaḥ means evil consequence or harmful defect. Arjuna says that he is able to see these harmful consequences clearly.

There is truth in this observation. War can destroy families. When many heads of families are killed, the family structure is shaken. Families lose protection, guidance, economic support, and continuity. Arjuna is not wrong to say that family destruction brings serious consequences.

But the conclusion he draws is wrong.

He says, “Because we see this evil, why should we not withdraw?” This sounds thoughtful, humble, and morally sensitive. But it is still not clear dharma-vicāra [enquiry into dharma]. It is a good-sounding argument being used to support withdrawal from duty.

The original issue was dharma versus adharma. The war had not been chosen casually. The Pāṇḍavas had tried peaceful means. The Kauravas had committed grave adharma and refused correction. In that context, a kṣatriya cannot simply say, “War has consequences, therefore I will withdraw.” The consequences must be seen, but dharma still has to decide the action.

Arjuna’s mind is now using true concerns to justify a wrong retreat. This is a subtle form of mohaḥ [confusion or delusion]. Mohaḥ [confusion or delusion] does not always sound foolish. Sometimes it sounds noble. It can speak about peace, sin, family, kindness, and harm. But if the conclusion makes a person abandon svadharma [one’s own duty] when svadharma must be upheld, then the reasoning is still confused.

Arjuna also addresses Kṛṣṇa as Janārdana. He is pleading with Kṛṣṇa, who is his charioteer, to support withdrawal. He wants Kṛṣṇa to drive the chariot away from the war.

Kṛṣṇa remains silent. This silence is important. Arjuna is still not ready to receive teaching. He is not asking in surrender yet. He is still presenting his own argument and expecting agreement. Teaching given to a non-receptive mind does not enter. So Kṛṣṇa lets Arjuna continue speaking.

This shloka teaches that seeing a real problem is not enough. One must also draw the right conclusion. A painful consequence does not automatically prove that duty should be abandoned. The mind must ask: “Is this truly pāpam [sin], or am I calling it sin because I am afraid of the pain involved in duty?”