Sanskrit
अधर्माभिभवात्कृष्ण प्रदुष्यन्ति कुलस्त्रियः । स्त्रीषु दुष्टासु वार्ष्णेय जायते वर्णसङ्करः ॥
adharmābhibhavāt kṛṣṇa praduṣyanti kulastriyaḥ strīṣu duṣṭāsu vārṣṇeya jāyate varṇasaṅkaraḥ
Translation
Owing to predominance of lawlessness, O Krishna, the women of the family become corrupt; women corrupted, O Vârshneya, there ariseth caste confusion;
Annie Besant · The Bhagavad-Gita, translated by Annie Besant (4th ed., 1922) — Wikisource · Public Domain
Explanation
This step in Arjuna’s argument rests on the patriarchal, caste-based social theory of its time and place, treating women’s conduct as the mechanism by which lineage purity is preserved or lost. It’s presented here exactly as the source text has it, as part of Arjuna’s own reasoning — worth flagging honestly as a product of its historical context, and worth noting that it plays no role in Krishna’s actual teaching, which in Chapter 2 addresses the metaphysics of the self and the discipline of action, not caste or gender purity.
Study deeper
Word by word
- adharmābhibhavātअधर्माभिभवात्
- from the prevailing of adharma
- kṛṣṇaकृष्ण
- O Krishna
- praduṣyantiप्रदुष्यन्ति
- become corrupted
- kula-striyaḥकुल-स्त्रियः
- the women of the family
- strīṣu duṣṭāsuस्त्रीषु दुष्टासु
- when the women are corrupted
- vārṣṇeyaवार्ष्णेय
- O scion of Vṛṣṇi
- jāyateजायते
- arises
- varṇa-saṅkaraḥवर्ण-सङ्करः
- confusion of varṇa — the collapse of social order
Commentary
Site Commentary
Set the specific historical content aside for a moment and look at the argument’s shape: one violation is claimed to cascade, uninterrupted, into total social collapse. That’s a slippery-slope structure — each step treated as inevitably causing the next — and it’s worth being able to recognize the pattern on its own, since it shows up constantly in arguments against change, independent of whether any particular claim inside it holds up.
Original commentary written for this site · © Amit Singh — original commentary
Concepts
Apply this verse
Lessons
Personal
- When you catch yourself imagining that one setback will inevitably cascade into total disaster, pause and check each link in that chain separately — slippery-slope reasoning feels convincing precisely because it skips verifying whether each step actually follows from the last.
Professional
- When a stakeholder argues that one small change will cascade into total system failure, ask them to defend each link in the chain individually — catastrophizing chains are persuasive as a whole but often weak at any single joint.
Family & Social
- If a family disagreement escalates because someone insists 'this one thing will ruin everything,' try breaking the predicted chain into its individual steps together — it's often easier to see where the logic actually breaks down than to argue with the fear as a whole.
Ask yourself
A few ways to take this verse past reading. Ticks and the note stay in this browser.