Arjuna still believes that, to fight against his cousins, teachers and grandfathers is a terrible (ghora) action. He seems to have forgotten, or not to have understood at all, Krishna’s words in the last chapter. Kashava had therein explained and clearly indicated that the Mahabharata-war was not Arjuna’s attempt to murder any of his cousins or teachers. Arjuna cannot have any individual personality in any army. It was a war. In a war the two armies fight, and it represents the clash of two ideologies. The Pandavas were convinced of the moral purity, the spiritual worth, and the divine glory of their standpoint in the imminent test of strength. But unfortunately, Arjuna could not sink his egoism, and see himself totally identified with the army, championing the cause of the good. To the degree he could not identify himself with the cause, to that extent he nourished a self-centered egoistic vanity, and, therefore, his moral puritanism in fighting the war.

Arjuna means to say that Krishna’s arguments were supporting the ‘Path-of-Renunciation,’ they included an advice to Arjuna to undertake the great and terrible ‘Path-of-Action.’

MOREOVER:

O Janardana, cet, if it be; te, Your; mata, opinion, intention; that buddhih, Wisdom; jyayasi, is superior; karmanah, to action-. If the combination of Wisdom and action be intended (by the Lord), then the means to Liberation is only one. [The path combining Wisdom and action.] In that case, Arjuna would have done something illogical in separating Wisdom from action by saying that Wisdom is superior to action. For, that (Wisdom or action, which is a constituent of the combination) cannot be greater than that (Combination, even) from the point of view of the result. [Since what is intended is a combination, therefore, the separation of Knowledge from action, from the point of view of the result, is not justifiable. When Knowledge and action are considered to form together a single means to Liberation, in that case each of them cannot be considered separately as producing its own distinct result. Arjuna’s question can be justified only if this separation were possible.] Similarly, what Arjuna said by way of censuring the Lord, as it were, in, ‘It has been stated by the Lord that Wisdom is superior to action, and He exhorts me saying, “Undertake action,” which is a source of evil! What may be the reason for this?’, and also in, ‘Tatkim, why then, O Kesava; niyojayasi, do You urge; mam, me; to ghore, horrible, cruel; karmani, action; involving injury?’-that (censure) also does not become reasonable. On the other hand, [If the opponent’s view be that Knowledge is to be combined with rites and duties sanctioned by the Vedas and the Smrtis in the case of the householders only, whereas for others those sanctioned by the Smrtis alone are to be combined with Knowledge…, then…] if it be supposed that the combination (of Knowledge) with action sanctioned only by the Smrtis has been enjoined for all by the Lord, and Arjuna also comprehended (accordingly), then, how can the statement, ‘Why then do you urge me to horrible action’, be rational? Besides,