Aggressor

Expressions researched:
"aggressor" |"aggressors"

BG Chapters 1 - 6

BG 1.36, Translation:

Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and our friends. What should we gain, O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?

BG 1.36, Purport:

According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: (1) a poison giver, (2) one who sets fire to the house, (3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, (4) one who plunders riches, (5) one who occupies another's land, and (6) one who kidnaps a wife. Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors. Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting any ordinary man, but Arjuna was not an ordinary person. He was saintly by character, and therefore he wanted to deal with them in saintliness. This kind of saintliness, however, is not for a kṣatriya.

BG 1.36, Purport:

Although a responsible man in the administration of a state is required to be saintly, he should not be cowardly. For example, Lord Rāma was so saintly that people even now are anxious to live in the kingdom of Lord Rāma (rāma-rājya), but Lord Rāma never showed any cowardice. Rāvaṇa was an aggressor against Rāma because Rāvaṇa kidnapped Rāma's wife, Sītā, but Lord Rāma gave him sufficient lessons, unparalleled in the history of the world. In Arjuna's case, however, one should consider the special type of aggressors, namely his own grandfather, own teacher, friends, sons, grandsons, etc. Because of them, Arjuna thought that he should not take the severe steps necessary against ordinary aggressors. Besides that, saintly persons are advised to forgive. Such injunctions for saintly persons are more important than any political emergency. Arjuna considered that rather than kill his own kinsmen for political reasons, it would be better to forgive them on grounds of religion and saintly behavior.

SB Canto 1

SB 1.7.16, Purport:

An enemy who sets fire to the house, administers poison, attacks all of a sudden with deadly weapons, plunders wealth or usurps agricultural fields, or entices one's wife is called an aggressor. Such an aggressor, though he be a brāhmaṇa or a so-called son of a brāhmaṇa, has to be punished in all circumstances. When Arjuna promised to behead the aggressor named Aśvatthāmā, he knew well that Aśvatthāmā was the son of a brāhmaṇa, but because the so-called brāhmaṇa acted like a butcher, he was taken as such, and there was no question of sin in killing such a brāhmaṇa's son who proved to be a villain.

SB 1.7.53-54, Translation:

The Personality of Godhead Sri Kṛṣṇa said: A friend of a brāhmaṇa is not to be killed, but if he is an aggressor he must be killed. All these rulings are in the scriptures, and you should act accordingly. You have to fulfill your promise to your wife, and you must also act to the satisfaction of Bhīmasena and Me.

SB 1.7.53-54, Purport:

As a brahma-bandhu, or a worthless son of a brāhmaṇa, Aśvatthāmā was not to be killed, but he was at the same time an aggressor also. And according to the rulings of Manu, an aggressor, even though he be a brāhmaṇa (and what to speak of an unworthy son of a brāhmaṇa), is to be killed. Droṇācārya was certainly a brāhmaṇa in the true sense of the term, but because he stood in the battlefield he was killed. But although Aśvatthāmā was an aggressor, he stood without any fighting weapons. The ruling is that an aggressor, when he is without weapon or chariot, cannot be killed. All these were certainly perplexities.

SB Canto 5

SB 5.9.17, Purport:

According to the Vedic injunctions, only an aggressor can be killed. If a person comes with an intent to kill, one can immediately take action and kill in self-defense. It is also stated that one can be killed if he comes to set fire to the home or to pollute or kidnap one's wife.

SB Cantos 10.14 to 12 (Translations Only)

SB 11.7.37, Translation:

A sober person, even when harassed by other living beings, should understand that his aggressors are acting helplessly under the control of God, and thus he should never be distracted from progress on his own path. This rule I have learned from the earth.

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 15.264, Purport:

""An aggressor intent on killing may be a very learned scholar of Vedānta, yet he should be killed because of his envy in killing others. In such a case, it is not sinful to kill a brāhmaṇa.""

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 1.36 -- London, July 26, 1973:

Ātatāyinaḥ means aggressor. According to law, if somebody comes to attack you, or if somebody comes to kidnap your wife, these are ātatāyinaḥ. Or somebody comes to set fire in your house, especially they are called aggressors. So these aggressors are to be immediately killed. There is no question of nonviolence. You must kill immediately. There is no sin. Ātatāyinaḥ. But here, although the other party is ātatāyinaḥ, aggressor, still, Arjuna is considering whether they should be killed or not.

Lecture on BG 1.36 -- London, July 26, 1973:

In every action, they are calculating. But he is considering that "This kind of aggressor, because they are my kinsmen, they are my family men, whether this kind of aggressor should be killed or not?" It is common sense. Suppose your son has done something mischievous. The same thing. Same thing means to attack the father. Still, the father will consider, "Whether I shall kill my son or not?" That is natural. "If my son sets fire in the house, whether I shall kill him or not?" So Arjuna's position is like that. "Although they are ātatāyinaḥ, aggressor, still, because they belong to the same family, whether I shall kill them?" He is considering, pāpam eva āśrayed: "If I kill this kind of aggressor, I will be attacked with sinful activities.

Lecture on BG 1.36 -- London, July 26, 1973:

Just see, they were ātatāyinaḥ, aggressor. There is no doubt about it. Because these dhārtarāṣṭrān, the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, they insulted Draupadi. Arjuna's wife. There was betting. The wife was betting. So they defeated, they were defeated in the chess play, and the wife was taken by the other party. So Karṇa took the opportunity. Because during Draupadi's svayamvara, Karṇa was insulted by Draupadi.

Lecture on BG 1.36 -- London, July 26, 1973:

So to show the example, Lord Rāmacandra, because Sītā was kidnapped, Sītā was insulted, or Rāmacandra was insulted, the retaliation was Lord Rāmacandra killed not only Rāvaṇa, but the whole dynasty, finished. Only for one woman. He could create so many. No. Because ātatāyinaḥ, aggressed over. Just to teach people that anyone, if he is aggressor, he must be killed. This is the position.

Lecture on BG 1.36 -- London, July 26, 1973:

Therefore Arjuna, being devatā, he is considering that "Although they are ātatāyinaḥ, at the same time, they are family men. Whether it is good to kill family?" He is asking Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is there. He is considering, he is consulting with Kṛṣṇa that "Do you think that killing this kind of aggressor, I will be benefitted or not?" Therefore in the last line he said, sva-janaṁ hi kathaṁ hatvā sukhinaḥ syāma mādhava: (BG 1.36) "My dear Kṛṣṇa, do you think by killing my family men, my relatives, shall I be happy?

Lecture on BG 2.1-5 -- Germany, June 16, 1974:

So when he was declining to fight, Arjuna, when he was declining to fight, at that time Kṛṣṇa gave him advice that "It is your duty to fight." So generally killing is not good at all, but when there is enemy, aggressor, then to kill the aggressor is not sin. So the other party in the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra, they became aggressor to the Arjuna's party. Now, this is the set up of the Bhagavad-gītā. The real purpose is to instruct Arjuna about spiritual understanding.

Lecture on BG 2.2-6 -- Ahmedabad, December 11, 1972:

Parantapa means one who can give trouble to the enemies. It is the duty of the kṣatriya. Enemies, aggressor, they should be killed. There is no ātatāyī. Ātatāyī means one who is aggressor. One who kidnaps one's wife, one who take away by force one's wealth, one who sets fire in one's house, these are called aggressor. So aggressor should be killed. Aggressor should be given trouble. So Kṛṣṇa does not teach unnecessarily nonviolence. If kṣatriya becomes nonviolent, then the whole state will be in chaos. They must learn how to kill any criminal.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.7.16 -- Vrndavana, September 14, 1976:

So here, Aśvatthāmā, he's born of a brāhmaṇa father, but his work has been proved just like a butcher. Therefore he is called brahma-bandhu. He's called not a brāhmaṇa: brahma-bandhu. Brahma-bandhoḥ śira ātatāyinaḥ. Ātatāyinaḥ, aggressor. A brāhmaṇa does not require to kill a person with weapon. No. That is kṣatriya's business. If one is actually a brāhmaṇa—of course, in the Kali-yuga such brāhmaṇa is not to be found—his simply curse is sufficient to kill a man.

Lecture on SB 1.8.50 -- Los Angeles, May 12, 1973:

If somebody is aggressor, he must be killed immediately. Dharma-yuddha. Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja is thinking that "Although there was fight, the fight was between our own men, my brother, my nephews, my grandfather. So they are family members. I have killed them for my kingdom." He is thinking in that way. He is a pious man.

Lecture on SB 1.8.50 -- Los Angeles, May 12, 1973:

Because in chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, there will be so many aggressors. The nature is so cruel. Just like Prahlāda Mahārāja, a five-years-old boy. His only fault was that he was chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, and the father was aggressor, giving him trouble so many ways. So we must be prepared.

Lecture on SB 1.10.1 -- Mayapura, June 16, 1973:

If somebody is coming to attack you unnecessarily, you must kill him first. It is not Vaiṣṇavism... "Oh, this man is coming to kill me. Right. All right, let me embrace him." No. That is not the rule. When there is ātatāyī, aggressor, you must fight, you must kill. That is religious.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Do not encroach upon others' freedom. That is Vedic injunction. That is nice. But why these people are encroaching upon the freedom of these animals? The birds, they are flying, freedom, the ducks. Why they kill? Encroaching upon other's freedom. Without any harm, the birds are flying, without... If you kill an aggressor then you are right.

1973 Correspondence

Letter to Kirtanananda -- Mayapur 22 June, 1973:

So when New Vrindaban has been attacked twice, thrice, why are you not keeping guns? We are not advocates of non-violence when there is aggression we must kill them. So I think you shall immediately arrange for guns and at least 10, 12 men should be trained up so when there is again attack you can properly reply the aggressor.