The Social and Military Position of the Ruling Caste in Ancient India, as Represented by the Sanskrit Epic c2.s2.22

c2.s2.22

Another method of eliminating the evil consequences of a bad moral precedent is shown in the priest’s choosing the less of two evils. His two inclinations were to glorify the Pāndus, and to uphold a sound morality. In some cases he sacrifices the first to the second. Thus, he permits the justified reproaches of the Kurus to remain against his own heroes. The reproaches are based on a common-sense fairness, but always from the subjective point of view of the person interested and badly treated. Thus, the Kurus reproach the Pāndu bitterly for interfering between two men who are fighting, and for killing his friend’s foe who is getting the better of his friend. Arjuna laughs at this *ex parte* view of the case: ‘Why,’ says he, ‘what nonsense for you to blame me! I saw my friend worsted, and struck the man who was worsting him. How are we to have a conflict if every man is to go off and fight by himself? That is no way to fight.’ Now, as it seems to me, the Kurus’ position expresses an opinion not necessarily founded on any abstraction of right and wrong, though it may indicate an advance on Pāndu morality. But the perplexed priest, unable to omit this striking and vivid scene, finds that the reproaches of the Kurus coincide with his own abstract principles, and he lets them stand, strengthening them with a quotation from his own code, for the sake of moral fighting, even if it offends against his hero. For Arjuna has, from the later point of view, absolutely no valid excuse.