rank materialists, the Charvakas, the founders of all other systems of Indian thought boldly
declare that “one should not adopt a foul means to achieve a desired end, however covetable that
end may be”. There should not be any doubt regarding this point.
I don’t think that your two examples are strong enough to prove that the end justifies the
means. For, the medicine, whether it be sweet or bitter, in so far as it does not do any harm to the
patient or anybody else while curing the disease, should be considered as a means free from any
fault. It is a fair means to achieve the end, viz., cure of the disease.
In the second example, Arjuna fought the Kauravas and killed them all, no doubt. But the
battle fought by Arjuna was not an exhibition of cruelty, but an execution of one’s own duty.
The war fell to his lot as pure duty or Svadharma. Arjuna did not want it himself. He did not
impose it on the Kauravas. He was challenged to it by them. He had to defend himself and his
clan. As a Kshatriya, it was his sacred duty and moral responsibility to fight for the defense of
his rights. Thus, Arjuna’s fighting the battle being purely duty-bound, is thoroughly justified.
Sri Krishna has reiterated this point in several places in the Gita. On the contrary, if
Arjuna had shirked away his responsibilities of fighting the battle, then he would have been
failing in his Dharma. Hence the Lord’s repeated commands to him: Svadharmamapi
Chavekshya Na Vikampitumarhasi (Waver not from your own duty on seeing it in front of you),
Yudhyasva Vigatajvara (Do thou fight, free from mental fever), etc.
From "May I answer that" by Swami Sivananda (1987-1963). More Informations on Swami Sivananda: on the Website of Divine Life Society, Photographs of Swami Sivananda, German Pages on Swami Sivananda
Comments