What Would the Buddha Have Advised Arjuna
I’ve been reflecting on the Bhagavad Gita from a Buddhist perspective. At the beginning of the Gita, Arjuna is deeply reluctant to fight because he recognizes the immense suffering and destruction the war will cause, including the deaths of relatives, teachers, and countless others. Krishna, however, urges him to fulfill his dharma and fight without attachment to the outcome. Considering the broader Mahabharata, the Pandavas had suffered serious injustices, peaceful negotiations had failed, and Duryodhana refused even a minimal compromise. If Arjuna refused to fight, wouldn’t that potentially allow Duryodhana to continue ruling unjustly and causing suffering to innocent people? Could Krishna’s advice therefore be understood not merely as fulfilling warrior duty, but as accepting the painful responsibility of protecting others? And from a Buddhist perspective, could refusing to act also have serious moral consequences?
I’m particularly interested in how different Buddhist traditions—Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Zen, and Vajrayāna—would approach this dilemma. Buddhism strongly emphasizes non-harming and compassion, but what happens when nonviolence might permit greater suffering? Is there a distinction between violence motivated by hatred and force used reluctantly to protect innocent people? If every peaceful alternative has genuinely failed, what should a compassionate ruler do when protecting thousands of people may require warfare? Would the Buddha, Nāgārjuna, or later Buddhist masters necessarily advise Arjuna to renounce the battle, or might their answers be more nuanced? I’m not trying to establish that the Gita or Buddhism is superior.
I’m genuinely interested in how Buddhist philosophy addresses this conflict between compassion, nonviolence, responsibility, and the consequences of inaction.