।। Shrimadbhagwad Geeta ।। A Practical Approach  ।।

।। श्रीमद्भगवत गीता ।। एक व्यवहारिक सोच ।।

।। Chapter  02. 34 -36 ।।

।। अध्याय    02. 34 -36  ।।

॥ श्रीमद्‍भगवद्‍गीता ॥ 2.34-36॥

अकीर्तिं चापि भूतानि कथयिष्यन्ति तेऽव्ययाम्‌ ।

सम्भावितस्य चाकीर्ति र्मरणादतिरिच्यते ॥34।।

भयाद्रणादुपरतं मंस्यन्ते त्वां महारथाः ।

येषां च त्वं बहुमतो भूत्वा यास्यसि लाघवम्‌ ॥35।।

अवाच्यवादांश्च बहून्‌ वदिष्यन्ति तवाहिताः ।

निन्दन्तस्तव सामर्थ्यं ततो दुःखतरं नु किम्‌ ॥36।।

“akīrtiḿ cāpi bhūtāni,

kathayiṣyanti te ‘vyayām..I

sambhāvitasya cākīrtir,

maraṇād atiricyate”।।34।।

“bhayād raṇād uparataḿ,

maḿsyante tvāḿ mahā-rathāḥ..I

yeṣāḿ ca tvaḿ bahu-mato,

bhūtvā yāsyasi lāghavam”।।35।।

“avācya-vādāḿś ca bahūn,

vadiṣyanti tavāhitāḥ..II

nindantas tava sāmarthyaḿ,

tato duḥkhataraḿ nu kim”।।36।।

भावार्थ : 

लोग सदैव तेरी बहुत समय तक रहने वाली अपकीर्ति का भी वर्णन करेंगे और सम्मानित मनुष्य के लिए अपकीर्ति मृत्यु से भी बढ़कर है ।

जिन-जिन योद्धाओं की दृष्टि में तू पहले सम्मानित हुआ है, वे महारथी लोग तुझे डर के कारण युद्ध-भूमि से हटा हुआ समझ कर तुच्छ मानेंगे।

तेरे शत्रु तेरी सामर्थ्य की निंदा करते हुए तुझे बहुत से कटु वचन भी कहेंगे, तेरे लिये इससे अधिक दु:खदायी और क्या हो सकता है?॥३४-३६॥

Meaning:

Moreover, everyone will also speak about your infamy forever. This will be a great sorrow, worse even than death, for an honourable person.

Great warriors will believe that you disengaged from the war due to cowardice. Even though they once regarded you highly, they will now look down upon you.

Your enemies will say many unspeakable things about you. They will condemn your prowess. What could be a greater sorrow than this?

Explanation:

Leaving philosphy aside, Shri krishana starts teaching social importance to do take part in this war for the reasons of prestige.

For respectable people, social prestige is very important. The particular guṇas (modes of nature) of warriors make respect and honor especially important for them. For them, dishonor is worse than death. Shree Krishna reminds Arjun of this, so that if he is not inspired by superior knowledge, he may at least be inspired by inferior knowledge.

Many societies in the world observe the norm that a warrior who runs away from the battlefield out of cowardice is ostracized from society. That could be the extent of dishonor inflicted upon Arjun if he avoided his duty.

Just before the start of the battle, if Arjun were to retire from the battlefield, these gallant warriors wouldn’t know that affection for his relatives had inspired him to flee. They would consider him a coward, and assume that he had abstained from the war in dread of their prowess. uses the word nindataḥ which means “to vilify.” Avāchya vādān means the use of harsh words such as “Eunuch.” Arjun’s enemies, like Duryodhan, would say many unbecoming things about him, such as, “Look at that impotent Arjun fleeing from the battlefield like a dog with its tail between its legs.”

Aristotle said that to make an argument forceful, convincing and persuasive, one has to incorporate three elements: ethos, logos and pathos, or in other words, emotion, logic and the reputation of the speaker. After having using logic in his teaching, Shri Krishna uses a call to emotion as a tool of persuasion.

We can learn so much from the way Shri Krishna builds and delivers his arguments to Arjuna, not just from the teaching itself. Whenever we have to make a presentation at work, or want to convince our spouse or our parents of something that is important to us, it is always better to a mix of logic and emotion in our arguments rather than just chose one or the other.

This argument you will find often given in the scriptures; in Ramayaṇa, Dasaratha refuses to give boon to Kaikeyi because he is ready to sacrifice everything but he does not want to sacrifice Rama. Kaikeyi uses all the arguments; all arguments fail. Ultimately, Kaikeyi gives one argument and that argument is all your forefathers have kept their words; they are all known for their vakya paripalanam. Entire Raghu vansa is known for vakya paripalanam, such a blotless glory they have maintained; if you withdraw your words, eat your own words, you will be the first person to bring a blot in your entire family. Do you want to sacrifice the name that you enjoy or do you want to go down the history as one who brought a blot in the blotless family of Raghu vansa? The moment that apamana word was given Dasaratha relents and says: Does not matter; he allows.

Similarly Kansa. He decides to kill Devaki because when asariri comes and tells that Devaki’s 8th son will be his killer. Vasudeva uses all the arguments to dissuade Kaṁsa and fails. All the arguments fails Ultimately the powerful argument is this. So your family has got wonderful name and fame, and down the history your name will go as the killer of your own sister; out of a fear of a son to be born. Do you want such an apamana? The moment the word apamana is given, Kaṁsa puts the sword inside.

।। हिंदी समीक्षा ।।

एक प्रसिद्ध सम्मानित वीर के लिए अपकीर्ति मरण से भी अधिक होती है। श्रीकृष्ण अर्जुन को दुविधा त्याग कर युद्ध में प्रवृत्त करने के लिए एक और तर्क प्रस्तुत करते हैं। अर्जुन का पक्ष धर्म और न्याय का होने पर भी उस का युद्ध से पलायन कायरता का लक्षण है। भगवान् के शब्दों में अर्जुन के प्रति सहानुभूति अन्तर्निहित है क्योंकि वे जानते हैं कि भावावेग में शूरवीर अर्जुन भी मन से दुर्बल होकर हतोत्साहित हो सकता है। भावी इतिहास में तो तुम्हारी अपकीर्ति बनी रहेगी ही परन्तु वर्तमान में भी शत्रु पक्ष के ये महारथी तुम्हारा उपहास करेंगे। इस भ्रातृहन्ता युद्ध से तुम्हें जो दुख है उसे न समझकर वे तो यही मानेंगे कि तुमने भय और कायरता के कारण युद्ध से पलायन किया है। इस प्रकार का अनादरपूर्ण कायरता का आरोप कोई भी वीर पुरुष सहन नहीं कर सकता विशेषरूप से जब अपने ही तुल्य बल के शत्रुओं द्वारा वह किया गया हो।

किसी भी वीर पुरुष के अपकीर्ति, अपमान जनित उपहास और अपवचन से बढ़ कर कोई भी निंदीय कार्य नही हो सकता। पूरी जिंदगी वह कुल की मर्यादा के लिए व्यतीत करता है इसलिए उस की रक्षा के लिए उस के जीवन का भी मूल्य नहीं। छोटे बच्चे तक परीक्षा में फेल या कम अंक आने पर आत्महत्या मां – पिता या समाज का अपमान और अपनी प्रतिष्ठा के चक्कर में कर लेते है।

रामायण काल में रघुकुल रीति सदा चली आई, प्राण जाए पर वचन न जाई में दशरथ तक में कैकई के वर के लिए प्राण तक दे दिए। कंस तक ने देवकी की हत्या लोक निंदा के भय से नही की।

यह देखकर कि अर्जुन के मन में इन तर्कों का अनुकूल प्रभाव पड़ रहा है श्रीकृष्ण उसको युद्ध से पलायन करने में जो दोष हैं उन्हें और अधिक स्पष्ट करके दिखाते हैं। लोकनिन्दा युद्ध से पलायन का आरोप इतिहास में अपकीर्ति इनसे बढ़कर एक सम्मानित व्यक्ति के लिये और अधिक दुख क्या हो सकता है।

युद्ध भूमि में युद्ध के लिए सांसारिक ज्ञान को देखते हुए यह वचन व्यवहारिक जगत में जब भी मोह या भय के कारण जब भी हम अपने कर्तव्य से भागते है तो इन्हें याद करना चाहिए। श्लोक 26 से 36 तक का गीता का ज्ञान अर्जुन के मोह एवम भय को ध्यान में रख कर दिया गया सांसारिक ज्ञान है। गीता में कृष्ण प्रवक्ता के Aristotle के तीन शब्द ethos, logos एवम pathos यानी प्रवक्ता में संस्कार, भावना एवं श्रोता को अपने वचन से सहमत कराने के गुण होना चाहिए। अर्जुन की युद्ध की भावना मोह एवम  भय से टूटी थी जिस को उस ने शास्त्र ज्ञान से बल दे कर निर्णय लिया कि इस युद्ध मे वो मर जाये किन्तु युद्ध नहीं करेगा। पहले श्लोक 11 से 25 तक ज्ञान, फिर 26-27 मोह, 28-36 उस की कीर्ति को बल देते हुए उस को पुनः युद्ध के लिए कहना, एक अच्छे प्रवक्ता के गुण बताता है।

Ethos शब्द प्रवक्ता के अधिकृत वचन का द्योतक है अर्थात प्रवक्ता को जिस विषय पर बोलना है उस का समुचित ज्ञान होना जरूरी है। यदि यह उस मे नही है तो श्रोता का उस पर विश्वास नही होगा।

Logos अपने वाक्यो एवम वचन को तर्क सम्मत बनाना जिस से श्रोता उसको समझ सके। तर्क के द्वारा किसी वस्तु या ज्ञान को सही या उचित सिद्ध करना एक सरल प्रवृति है।

Pathos प्रवक्ता को श्रोता है भावुक कमजोरियों का सही सही आकलन कर लेना चाहिए। क्योंकि भावुकता वह शक्ति है जो इंसान को वह सब करवा सकती है जो वह बुद्धिमत्ता पूर्ण हो कर सोच कर नही कर सकता। भला विवेक रहते कोई आदमी आत्महत्या कर सकता है?

हमारे जीवन मे जब भी हम से बड़े या छोटे सहमत न हो तो हम Aristotle के सिंद्धांत न पालन करते हुए सीधा भावना या आदेश का आचरण करते है और परिवार में यह असहमति बनी रहने से आगे परिवार में कटुता लाती है।

श्लोक 11-36 हमे हमारे भावना वश लिए निर्णय को पुनः विचारने को कहता कि ज्ञान एवम हमारे संस्कार, हमारी भावना और कीर्ति को देखते हुये समय और स्थान के अनुसार सही निर्णय लेना चाहिए।

कर्म त्याग, अहिंसा, दया, मोह उन्ही को शोभा देता है जो सामर्थ्यवान हो। डरपोक, निर्बल, निर्धन, आलसी व्यक्ति यदि यह बातें करे तो यह संसार उसे नकार देता है। अतः अपने को पहले शक्तिशाली होना को सिद्ध करना आवश्यक है।

आगे हम कर्मयोग यानी एक योगी की भांति किस प्रकार हम अपने कार्य करे पढ़ेगे।

।। हरि ॐ तत सत।। 02.34-36 ।।

।। विशेष ।। Ethos, Logos and Pathos: The Structure of a Great Speech ।। 2. 34-36।।

“A speech is like a love affair. Any fool can start it, but to end it requires considerable skill.”

— Lord Mancroft

The structure of a great oral argument has been passed down through the ages, starting with Aristotle. Not only is it an incredibly valuable skill to have, it’s important to know how you’re being persuaded when you’re a part of the audience. So using Sam Leith’s Words Like Loaded Pistols as our guide, let’s discuss Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos.

But before we get into the specifics of the three modes, we need to decide on the structure of our argument itself. How? By doing the work required to have an opinion.

This phase is referred to as invention, but it’s not about making something up, it’s more about the information gathering or research phase of your work.

Invention is doing your homework: thinking up in advance exactly what arguments can be made both for and against a given proposition, selecting the best on your own side, and finding counterarguments to those on the other.

This research phase should not be limited to the subject matter, it should also include your audience. If there is one theme that resonates throughout Leith’s book, it’s that you must know your audience; their interests, prejudices and expectations. Without that grounding, you’re already setting yourself up for failure. (In other words, your moving speech on why we all need to take a social media holiday may not resonate at the Twitter shareholder meeting.)

Ethos is about establishing your authority to speak on the subject, logos is your logical argument for your point and pathos is your attempt to sway an audience emotionally. Leith has a great example for summarizing what the three look like.

Ethos: ‘Buy my old car because I’m Tom Magliozzi.’ Logos: ‘Buy my old car because yours is broken and mine is the only one on sale.’ Pathos: ‘Buy my old car or this cute little kitten, afflicted with a rare degenerative disease, will expire in agony, for my car is the last asset I have in the world, and I am selling it to pay for kitty’s medical treatment.’

Ethos

The first part of ethos is establishing your credentials to be speaking to the audience on the specific subject matter. It’s the verbal equivalent of all those degrees hanging up in your doctor’s office. And once you’ve established why you are an authority on the subject, you need to build rapport. Ethos, when everything is stripped away, is about trust.

Your audience needs to know (or to believe, which in rhetoric adds up to the same thing) that you are trustworthy, that you have a locus standi to talk on the subject, and that you speak in good faith. You need your audience to believe that you are, in the well-known words, ‘A pretty straight kind of guy.’

So if you’re a politician and you’re speaking about reforming the legal system, it’s great to be a lawyer or a judge, but it’s even better to be a lawyer or a judge who comes from the same community as your audience. Between two speakers with identical credentials, the more closely relatable one will win the audience.

You’ll even see a reverse ethos appeal at times, an attack on an opponent which questions their credentials and trustworthiness and serves to alienate them from the audience. To head that off, it’s best to establish your ethos early on, both to give your attackers more of a challenge and to create a hook for your logos to hang on.

Logos

Here’s how Leith describes logos, the next link in the chain:

If ethos is the ground on which your argument stands, logos is what drives it forward: it is the stuff of your arguments, the way one point proceeds to another, as if to show that the conclusion to which you are aiming is not only the right one, but so necessary and reasonable as to be more or less the only one.

Think of this as the logic behind your argument. You want your points to seem so straightforward and commanding that your audience can’t conceive of an alternative.

Aristotle had a tip here: He found that the most effective use of logos is to encourage your audience to reach the conclusion to your argument on their own, just moments before your big reveal. They will relish in the fact that they were clever enough to figure it out, and the reveal will be that much more satisfying.

Another logos trick used often is the much abused syllogism.

The syllogism is a way of combining two premises and drawing a fresh conclusion that follows logically from them. The classic instance you always hear quoted is the following: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

While you need to take care with the syllogisms you use — false syllogisms can lead to obvious logical fallacies — they can be a powerful tool for helping your audience draw certain conclusions.

Aristotle also advocated the use ‘commonplaces’, or accepted premises shared with the audience. The best arguments are soaked in them.

Associated with these general topics are ‘commonplaces’ (topos is Greek for a ‘place’). Any form of reasoning has to start from a set of premises, and in rhetoric those premises are very often commonplaces. A commonplace is a piece of shared wisdom: a tribal assumption. In the use of commonplaces, you can see where logos and ethos intersect.

Commonplaces are culturally specific, but they will tend to be so deep-rooted in their appeal that they pass for universal truths. They are, in digested form, the appeal to ‘common sense.’ You get nowhere appealing to commonplaces alien to your audience.

The wise persuader starts from one or two commonplaces he knows he has in common with his audience – and, where possible, arrives at one too.

Your use of commonplaces is also a good point to interject pathos, as many of these common beliefs can illicit an emotional response. Let’s dig into pathos.

Pathos

Your logical argument will be that much more persuasive if it’s wrapped up with a good dose of emotion. Because of the way we use the word pathos in the modern world, you may be thinking of something dramatic and sad. But pathos is more nuanced than that; it can be humor, love, patriotism, or any emotional response.

The key here once again is to know your audience. If you are trying to evoke a sense of anger or sadness regarding mankind’s role in the decline of the honeybee, you might not get the response you want from the bee allergy support group.

You can even invoke pathos by admitting a wrong. (We all make mistakes…) This can be a clever way to put your opponent off balance.

This is the figure, called paromologia in the Greek, where you concede, or appear to concede, part of your opponent’s point. It turns what is often necessity to advantage, because it makes you look honest and scrupulous, takes the wind out of your opponent’s sails, and allows you to shift the emphasis of the argument in a way finally favorable to you. It’s the equivalent of a tactical retreat, or of the judo fighter using an opponent’s momentum against him.

Another tool you can use with pathos is something the ancients called aposiopesis.

Aposiopesis – a sudden breaking off as if at a loss for words – can be intended to stir pathos. And even where something appears merely decorative – a run of alliteration or a mellifluously turned sentence – it serves to commend the speech more easily to memory, and to give pleasure to the audience. Delight is an end, as well as a means.

And we can’t forget joy and laughter. A well received joke can help you both connect with the audience (ethos) and bring home the pathos appeal.

The joke can do more than just perk up a drowsing audience. It can be a powerful rhetorical tool. It participates in the pathos appeal inasmuch as it stirs an audience’s emotions to laughter – but more importantly, it participates in the ethos appeal, inasmuch as laughter is based on a set of common assumptions. As Edwin Rabbie argues in ‘Wit and Humour in Roman Rhetoric,’ ‘Jokes usually presuppose (even rest on) a significant amount of shared knowledge.

Ultimately, the three modes of persuasion are interconnected. It’s helpful not to think of them in a linear way but more like three overlapping circles. If you can create something with ethos, logos, and pathos peppered throughout, and tie it all into your audience’s belief system, you will have a very strong argument.

While Aristotle’s three persuasive appeals make appearances throughout the book, there is so much more to Words Like Loaded Pistols. Leith goes into depth regarding the five parts of rhetoric and the three branches of oratory. He also spend considerable time explaining the different figures, also known as the ‘flowers of rhetoric, which can be thought of as the literary weapons you can use in your war of words. If you have an interest in making your own presentations or speeches better, or in understanding the techniques a speaker is using when you are in the audience then this book is definitely worth the read. In the meantime check out our post on Wartime Rhetoric for some inspiration.

।। हरि ॐ तत् सत् ।। विशेष 34 – 36 ।।

Complied by: CA R K Ganeriwala ( +91 9422310075)