Arjuna names the end result of the collapse he has been tracing: caste-mixing wipes out the eternal duties of family and birth-group alike.
This is not yet Krishna's teaching. It is Arjuna, at the low point of his own reasoning, fastening shut the case against the war before Krishna has said a single word in reply.
These very faults of the family-destroyers are what mix the social orders together, and by them the eternal duties of caste and of family alike are wiped out.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Sanjaya is narrating to the blind king Dhritarashtra. Arjuna has already looked across both armies and traced, one link at a time, the ruin he believes this war will bring. Here he reaches the end of that chain: caste-mixing, and with it, the collapse of the eternal duties of family and birth-group.
The teaching
The verse states a single claim with real finality: these very faults of the family-destroyers, the faults that produce varna-sankara, the mixing of the social orders, are what uproot the jati-dharma and the kula-dharma, the duties owed to one's birth-group and the duties carried down a particular family line. Where fuller commentary on this exact line survives, it stays remarkably close to the verse's own words. Sridhara's surviving comment restates the claim almost verbatim: by these faults, the eternal class-dharma and family-dharma are uprooted. Madhusudana's surviving comment does the same, naming both kinds of dharma by name and confirming that they are uprooted, without pausing to argue further why caste-mixing specifically severs them. Two of the four acaryas gathered here leave no comment composed fresh for this verse at all. Ramanuja folds it into his treatment of verses 1.26 through 1.47 as a single continuous passage, his full remark given at that passage's opening, 1.26, where Arjuna's whole stretch of grief, this fear of dharma's collapse included, is read as the mark of a great-souled, supremely compassionate man, not a clouded judgment awaiting correction. Abhinavagupta folds it into his treatment of 1.35 through 1.44, his full remark given at 1.35, where sin itself is named the true doer in the slaying of an assailant, a contraction of seeing born of greed. Extended honestly and clearly labeled as extension rather than his recorded word, that frame would suggest Arjuna's fear of dharma's collapse is a further instance of the same contracted seeing. Shankara has no surviving comment anywhere in chapter one, and Madhva's commentary does not begin until 2.11, so neither an Advaita nor a Dvaita reading can honestly be attributed to either of them for this line.
The doubt that rises
Is Arjuna's dread here a genuine moral insight, one the Gita's later teaching must take seriously and answer, or is it a feared future spoken as though it had already happened, used to close a question rather than to keep examining it? The verse itself does not say. Krishna has not yet spoken a single word.
Where the paths divide
Read through a complete silence, since nothing survives from Shankara.
No comment from Shankara survives anywhere in chapter one; his extant commentary does not treat this narrative frame at all. No Advaita-specific reading of caste-mixing and dharma's collapse can honestly be given in his name for this verse.
Read as part of a wider passage, not a fresh comment.
Ramanuja folds this verse into his treatment of 1.26 through 1.47 as one continuous passage, with his full remark given at its opening. There, Arjuna's grief, this fear of dharma's collapse included, is read as the visible mark of a great-souled, supremely compassionate man breaking under real love and a real fear of sin, not a judgment awaiting correction.
Read as a complete gap in the source material.
Madhva's Gita commentary does not begin until verse 2.11. The whole of chapter one, this verse's dread of caste-mixing included, passes without a single word from him, and nothing here should be read as filling that gap on his behalf.
Read as an extension from his stated remark at the passage's opening.
Abhinavagupta's comment is folded into his treatment of 1.35 through 1.44, given fully at 1.35, eight lines before this one: sin itself is named the true doer in slaying an assailant, a contraction of seeing caused by greed and the failure to see one's own family's true nature. Extended forward, this would frame Arjuna's fear of dharma's collapse as one more instance of that same contracted seeing, though this is a labeled extension of his actual words, not fresh composition for this line.
Read as the one line that survives, and nothing more.
What remains attributed to Sridhara here is brief: these faults uproot the eternal class-dharma and family-dharma. It confirms the plain sense of the verse and ventures no further argument about why caste-mixing specifically severs these duties, and this entry does not supply one on his behalf.
Read as the mechanism the verse itself displays.
Set the question of doctrine aside for a moment and notice what Arjuna's own reasoning does: he speaks a feared social consequence as though it were already accomplished fact, and lets that dread stand in as the reason to refuse a duty he has not yet actually failed. Read this way, the verse is less a settled claim about caste than a portrait of how dread argues.
This page does not invent positions for the acaryas who left none composed fresh here, and it does not blur an extension of a neighboring verse's remark with a word actually written for this one. What stays open is real: is the collapse Arjuna fears a genuine danger the coming teaching must take seriously, or is it, at least in part, the shape grief takes when a man reaches for the largest possible consequence to justify what he has already decided to feel? Both readings take his words seriously. Neither is manufactured to settle the question for him.
A question to carry
When you dread a consequence that has not yet happened, do you ever find yourself speaking of it as though it already had, the way Arjuna does here, and if so, what does that dread let you avoid deciding?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
Let this moment stand honestly: a fear, however sincerely felt, is not yet a fact. Sit with that difference a while before you let dread finish an argument that reason has not yet been given the chance to complete.
Each school is voiced from the commentators named above. Their full words, every translation, and where the schools agree and differ wait in the reading desk just below. Open the commentary desk.
Arjuna has been tracing a chain of consequences since he first surveyed the two armies; here he reaches its end-link, the wiping out of duty that, on his own reasoning, makes the coming battle something to be refused.
Where they agreethe convergence
Across schools and centuries the commentators come to the same ground. These are the points they share, and the voices that hold each one.
The same faults of the family-destroyers tear up two kinds of duty at once: the duties tied to your birth-group, and the duties carried down your own family line.
Across Bhakti, AdvaitaŚrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śrīdhara and Madhusūdana’s words
Arjuna names the result of the breakdown he has been tracing: these very faults of the family-destroyers, the faults that produce varna-sankara, the mixing of social orders, are what uproot the jati-dharma and the kula-dharma, the duties tied to one's birth-group and the duties carried down a particular family line. Where the surviving sources speak to this line at all, they confirm this plain sense without adding a separate argument.
These duties are called eternal, immemorial customs handed down, not recent or optional arrangements, which is why their undoing carries such weight for the one who fears it.
Across Bhakti, AdvaitaŚrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śrīdhara and Madhusūdana’s words
These duties are called eternal, sasvata, immemorial customs handed down rather than recent or optional arrangements, and that word is part of what gives their threatened loss its weight in Arjuna's reasoning: what he fears is not the lapse of a convention but the severing of something he takes to be permanent.
Here the whole chain Arjuna has been laying out is fastened shut: the war wounds the clan, the wound destroys duty, wrongdoing spreads, and the mixing of orders follows.
Across Bhakti, AdvaitaŚrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śrīdhara and Madhusūdana’s words
This verse functions as the end-link in a chain Arjuna has been building since he first surveyed the two armies: war wounds the clan, the clan's ruin destroys its duties, the loss of duty lets wrongdoing spread, and from that spreading comes the mixing of orders this verse names as already accomplished fact.
Two of the four surveyed acaryas, Ramanuja and Abhinavagupta, leave no comment composed fresh for this line; their full remarks stand at earlier verses within a wider passage, and this page keeps that distinction honest rather than blurring it.
Across Viśiṣṭādvaita, Kashmir ŚaivaRāmānuja · AbhinavaguptaIn Rāmānuja and Abhinavagupta’s words
Two of the four acaryas surveyed here leave no independent word on this exact line. Ramanuja folds it into his treatment of 1.26 through 1.47 as a single passage, his full remark given at 1.26; Abhinavagupta folds it into his treatment of 1.35 through 1.44, his full remark given at 1.35. Neither composed fresh material for this verse's own claim about caste-mixing and dharma's collapse.
Notice, beneath the social fear itself, the plainer human pattern: a feared consequence spoken as though it had already arrived, doing the work of closing a question rather than continuing to examine it.
Across Bhakti, AdvaitaŚrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śrīdhara and Madhusūdana’s words
These are Arjuna's own words, spoken from within his grief, not a teaching Krishna has yet endorsed or corrected. The surviving commentary at this line unfolds his reasoning as his reasoning; it does not yet deliver the Gita's settled judgment on the fear of caste-mixing that drives it.
This is the shared ground; it can be carried as it is. Below is where they differ.
Where they differthe divergence
Viśiṣṭādvaita, in their fuller words
Ramanuja's comment on this verse is folded into his treatment of 1.26 through 1.47 as one passage, given fully at 1.26: Arjuna's grief, his dread of dharma's uprooting included, is read as the mark of a great-souled, supremely compassionate man breaking under love for his kinsmen and real fear of sin, not a clouded judgment awaiting correction before Krishna speaks.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva's surviving Gita commentary does not begin until verse 2.11. The whole of chapter one, including this verse's argument about caste-mixing and the collapse of jati-dharma and kula-dharma, passes without a single word from him, and nothing here fills that gap on his behalf.
Shaiva, in their fuller words
Abhinavagupta's comment is folded into his treatment of 1.35 through 1.44, given fully at 1.35: sin itself is named the true doer in slaying an assailant, a contraction of seeing caused by greed and the failure to perceive one's own family's true nature. On a Kashmir Shaiva reading, one could extend this to frame Arjuna's fear of dharma's collapse as a further contraction of the same seeing, but this is a labeled extension of his stated words, not fresh composition for this verse.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Set aside, for a moment, which acarya said what, and notice the mechanism the verse itself displays: a sincere, grieving man treats a feared social consequence as though it were already settled fact, and lets that fear function as a reason to refuse a duty he has not yet actually failed. The verse is worth reading for how dread projects a future collapse and then argues from that projection as though it had already occurred.
A few questions to carry
These ask for understanding, not recall; each answer is settled by the commentary itself.
For a second sitting
Carry this with youwhat stays
Notice, without needing to settle it, how easily a feared outcome can be spoken as though it had already happened. Arjuna does not say caste-mixing might follow from this war; he speaks the mixing and the ruin of duty as accomplished. Before you refuse a task in front of you, ask whether the calamity you are picturing has actually arrived, or whether you are, like him, treating your own dread as testimony.
Before you let a dreaded outcome settle a question for you, pause and ask whether it has actually happened yet, or whether, like Arjuna here, you are mistaking your own fear for a finished fact.
Read deeper
Everything a full study holds, folded below.
Word by word
All the commentary, woven together
The commentary, woven together
machine-assisted draft, pending review
Convergence
rjuna names the result of the breakdown he has been tracing: these very faults of the family-destroyers, the faults that produce varna-sankara, the mixing of social orders, are what uproot the jati-dharma and the kula-dharma, the duties tied to one's birth-group and the duties carried down a particular family line. Where the surviving sources speak to this line at all, they confirm this plain sense without adding a separate argument.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
These duties are called eternal, sasvata, immemorial customs handed down rather than recent or optional arrangements, and that word is part of what gives their threatened loss its weight in Arjuna's reasoning: what he fears is not the lapse of a convention but the severing of something he takes to be permanent.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
This verse functions as the end-link in a chain Arjuna has been building since he first surveyed the two armies: war wounds the clan, the clan's ruin destroys its duties, the loss of duty lets wrongdoing spread, and from that spreading comes the mixing of orders this verse names as already accomplished fact.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Two of the four acaryas surveyed here leave no independent word on this exact line. Ramanuja folds it into his treatment of 1.26 through 1.47 as a single passage, his full remark given at 1.26; Abhinavagupta folds it into his treatment of 1.35 through 1.44, his full remark given at 1.35. Neither composed fresh material for this verse's own claim about caste-mixing and dharma's collapse.
Rāmānujācārya · Ācārya Abhinavagupta
These are Arjuna's own words, spoken from within his grief, not a teaching Krishna has yet endorsed or corrected. The surviving commentary at this line unfolds his reasoning as his reasoning; it does not yet deliver the Gita's settled judgment on the fear of caste-mixing that drives it.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara has no surviving comment anywhere in chapter one; his extant Gita commentary does not treat the narrative frame at all, this verse included. No Advaita-specific reading of caste-mixing and dharma's collapse can honestly be attributed to him here.
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja's comment on this verse is folded into his treatment of 1.26 through 1.47 as one passage, given fully at 1.26: Arjuna's grief, his dread of dharma's uprooting included, is read as the mark of a great-souled, supremely compassionate man breaking under love for his kinsmen and real fear of sin, not a clouded judgment awaiting correction before Krishna speaks.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva's surviving Gita commentary does not begin until verse 2.11. The whole of chapter one, including this verse's argument about caste-mixing and the collapse of jati-dharma and kula-dharma, passes without a single word from him, and nothing here fills that gap on his behalf.
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta's comment is folded into his treatment of 1.35 through 1.44, given fully at 1.35: sin itself is named the true doer in slaying an assailant, a contraction of seeing caused by greed and the failure to perceive one's own family's true nature. On a Kashmir Shaiva reading, one could extend this to frame Arjuna's fear of dharma's collapse as a further contraction of the same seeing, but this is a labeled extension of his stated words, not fresh composition for this verse.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
What remains attributed to Sridhara is brief and close to the verse's own words: these faults uproot the eternal class-dharma and family-dharma. It confirms the plain sense and ventures no further argument about why caste-mixing specifically severs these duties, and this entry does not supply one on his behalf.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Set aside, for a moment, which acarya said what, and notice the mechanism the verse itself displays: a sincere, grieving man treats a feared social consequence as though it were already settled fact, and lets that fear function as a reason to refuse a duty he has not yet actually failed. The verse is worth reading for how dread projects a future collapse and then argues from that projection as though it had already occurred.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
Is this verse teaching me that social and family breakdown is a real spiritual danger, or is it simply showing me a mind in the grip of fear reaching for the largest possible catastrophe to justify not acting?
The surviving commentary at this exact line does not settle that question; both Sridhara and Madhusudana confirm only the verse's plain claim, without pausing to weigh whether Arjuna's fear is itself sound reasoning. What the wider passage makes clear is that these are his words, spoken before Krishna has said anything at all.
Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Ramanuja's frame at 1.26, extended forward across this whole stretch of grief, reads the fear itself charitably: this is what a great-souled and compassionate man feels when facing the possible ruin of everyone he loves, not evidence of a flawed character needing correction.
Rāmānujācārya
But notice, too, that the fear is being used here to end a debate rather than open one: Arjuna reaches the mixing of orders as already accomplished and stops there, rather than asking whether the war he is refusing would actually produce it. The verse can be read as showing you both a real concern and a mind no longer questioning its own reasoning.
Contemplation
Notice, without needing to settle it, how easily a feared outcome can be spoken as though it had already happened. Arjuna does not say caste-mixing might follow from this war; he speaks the mixing and the ruin of duty as accomplished. Before you refuse a task in front of you, ask whether the calamity you are picturing has actually arrived, or whether you are, like him, treating your own dread as testimony.
Sit with this · sonnet-5-authored
All the translations and commentary
Pull up a chair.
You have come to sit with this verse. When you are ready to hear the translators and the commentators in full, open a tradition in the doorways below, or add a voice by name above.
Also hear this verse, tradition by tradition.