In the Bhagavad-gītā, Sixteenth Chapter, you will find the description of the asura: pravṛttiṁ ca nivṛttiṁ ca na vidur asurā janāḥ (BG 16.7). Pravṛtti. Pravṛtti means what sort of activities we shall do and what sort of activities we shall not do. The asuras, they do not know. The asuras, they do not know. Anything they do. "For my sense gratification I must do everything." Therefore they become entangled. So long they are strong in this life, they do not take care of anyone, śāstra, sādhu or guru. They do not care for anything. So that means . . . but the asuric civilization, the living entities become entangled because he may not care for any action, the asura, but the nature is there.
- prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni
- guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ
- ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā
- kartāham iti manyate
- (BG 3.27)
Rascals, they are thinking that they are free to act anything he likes. That is not possible. So long we are in this material world, we are conditioned. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi. As we are associating with the particular quality of this material nature . . .
There are three varieties of quality: goodness, passion and ignorance. So we have to associate with either of these qualities—unless we are Kṛṣṇa conscious. Unless one is engaged in devotional service, he must be influenced by these three kinds of qualities. Goodness . . . somebody may be very good man, according to the estimation of the . . . just like Arjuna, he is talking in the modes of goodness, considering, considering. "Although they are ātatāyinaḥ . . ." Pāpam eva āśrayed asmān hatvā etān ātatāyinaḥ. 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. That is the difference between devatā. 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?"