Abstract

The 47 verses of the first chapter are divided equally by the 24th verse. The first 23 verses represent the individualist outlook of Duryodhana in the upbeat mood. In contrast, from verse 25 onwards, the upbeat mood gives way to despondency of downcast Arjuna, who starts lamenting the possible demise of people related to him by birth and alliances, and thereby demise of social order of clans and tribes based on relations of birth and alliance. Kṛṣṇa finds both the expectation of a social order based on modern individualist outlook as unjustified as the despondency at demise of tribes based on clannish and tribal outlook. The middle verse tells about the placing of the entire carriage discussion in the middle of the conflicting modern individualistic inclusive social order and the social order of clans and tribes. The middle position, advocated and elaborated in every detail in the entire Bhagavadgītā, is that of social formation based on institutions and practice of institutions. Vedavyāsa deliberately puts two consecutive erroneous statements in the mouth of Duryodhana and three consecutive errors in the mouth of Arjuna—errors of Duryodhana in I.10 and 11 and Arjuna’s errors in I.35, 36, and 37—to underline the error of outlook of each of them. The lately discovered errors of I.35 and I.37 are quite significant as these indicate that the theory of institution advocated in Bhagavadgītā is that of institution as a beehive. Vedavyāsa developed, without stating it explicitly, the beehive conception of institution as person, taking it over from śṛti and pañcarātra texts, without any beehive-like static stratification of the system of fourfold varṇa and without any essential involvement of static varṇa dharma rather developed it based on śāśvata dharma so that institution as person is ever manifesting with its changing forms in accordance with śāśvata dharma, which is different from varṇa dharma.