HomeBhagavad GitaCh. 1Shloka 41

Shloka 41

Arjuna Vishada YogaThe Yoga of Arjuna's Despondency

Bhagavad Gita 41 illustration

सङ्करो नरकायैव कुलघ्नानां कुलस्य च । पतन्ति पितरो ह्येषां लुप्तपिण्डोदकक्रियाः ॥ १.४१ ॥

saṅkaro narakāyaiva kulaghnānāṃ kulasya ca | patanti pitaro hyeṣāṃ luptapiṇḍodakakriyāḥ || 1.41 ||

वर्ण-संकर से कुलघातियों और कुल का पतन होता है; पिण्ड-जल आदि श्राद्ध-क्रियाएँ लुप्त होने से उनके पितर (पूर्वज) भी पतित हो जाते हैं।

Social intermixture (saṅkara) leads to a hellish condition for both the destroyers of the family-line and the family itself; for their ancestors fall when the rites of offering (piṇḍa) and water-libations are discontinued.

Most traditional readings emphasize ritual discontinuity (piṇḍa-udaka) as causing ancestral ‘fall’; academic renderings often treat this as a reflection of dharmaśāstra social-ritual ideology rather than a metaphysical claim requiring assent. No major variant is commonly noted for this pāda in standard recensions, but CE confirmation is recommended.

सङ्करःmixture; social intermixture (varna-saṅkara)
सङ्करः:
Karta
Rootसङ्कर
नरकायfor hell; leading to hell
नरकाय:
Sampradana
Rootनरक
एवindeed; certainly; only
एव:
Rootएव
कुलघ्नानाम्of the destroyers of the family
कुलघ्नानाम्:
Rootकुलघ्न
कुलस्यof the family; of the lineage
कुलस्य:
Rootकुल
and
:
Root
पतन्तिfall; perish; go down
पतन्ति:
Root√पत्
पितरःthe forefathers; ancestors
पितरः:
Karta
Rootपितृ
हिfor; indeed
हि:
Rootहि
एषाम्of these (people)
एषाम्:
Rootएतद्
लुप्तlost; discontinued
लुप्त:
Root√लुप्
पिण्डोदकक्रियाःthe rites of piṇḍa and water-offerings (śrāddha rites)
पिण्डोदकक्रियाः:
Karta
Rootपिण्डोदकक्रिया
Arjuna
DharmaKula-dharmaŚrāddha (ancestral rites)Social order (varṇa/jāti discourse)
Moral anxietyConsequences of social disruptionTradition and obligation

FAQs

Arjuna’s reasoning shows anticipatory guilt and catastrophic forecasting: he imagines broad social and familial collapse as a consequence of his participation in the conflict.

The verse frames ritual continuity and ancestral well-being as linked; philosophically, it illustrates a dharma-based worldview where individual action is embedded in transgenerational obligations.

It continues Arjuna’s argument that the breakdown of family structures undermines inherited duties and rites, strengthening his reluctance to act.

Read non-literally, it can be taken as a warning that abrupt social rupture can erode shared practices that hold communities together, calling for careful ethical reflection before drastic action.