RESPONSIBLE LEGACY

Responsibility makes people enterprising and adventurous and the same responsibility can make some people feel burdened and anxiety ridden.

Those who can handle responsibilty with ease can either push the other kind of persons to the wall and increase their anxiety or the responsible people could be used by their loved ones .
Gandhari was Dharmik and caring but Duryodhana misused her love and care.
Dronacharya was dedicated to his son Ashwathama  in giving him all that he deserved but in return of this dedication Ashwathama started demanding  from his father that what was not dharmik and  was non beneficial to the society.He asked  for the brahmastra, which was later on was misused by him.

Responsible behavior of Yudhsthira was misused by Dhristhrastra by inviting him for a gambling match with the clear intention of cheating him of the kingdom which rightfully belonged to the Pandavas.

Responsibility is great but allowing others to misuse your responsible behaviour is adharma.
Misuse is adharma and allowing that misuse is also adharma.

Good parents some time allow their bad children to exploit them.
Good citizens by being mute spectators allow exploitative leaders to abuse the citizens.
Charitable leaders by giving charity allow the non enterprising people to become lazy and useless.

Therefore a responsible person's main responsibility is to  create the legacy of responsibility.

The Pandavas were responsible and they saw that Abhimanyu was of the same nature. Pariksit Abhimanyu's son continued the legacy of responsibility which was his family tradition. He took responsibility of his kingdom and  the responsibility of maintaining a powerful spiritual culture which he inherited  from his fore-fathers.

On the other hand when we look at Mahatma Gandhi  we see that he was a transparent leader but what happened to his legacy?
Some one physically killed him and others destroyed his legacy.

He wanted India to be governed by spiritual principles but those who were at the helm of  affairs had no or little inclination for self discipline and spiritual inspiration. The creation of a new democracy slowly became ineffective and corrupt.  And the good people kept on serving  useless and  spiritually bankrupt masters.

This vicious cycle can only be broken if good responsible people do not get blackmailed by irresponsible people like Duryodhana, Ashwathama and a host of people who are like them.

Mahabharata was a war that was insured because good people like the Pandavas were guided by Krishna and were unwilling to be abused by abusive people. Hence they created responsible governance which left a legacy.

DESTINY AND DESIRE

Our destiny and desire are actually interconnected  and this is realised  when we are sensitive to our surroudings. However when we lack sensitivity we are superimposing our desire which is not our destiny, and hence there is a clash between desire and destiny.

There are two kinds of desires:
One kind of desire is born out of subltle influences caused by our previous samsakaras, or effects of the past.

The other kind of desire is born out of impositions  made by strong influences of our immediate surroundings.
In this scenario our desire and our destiny are in clash, and they cause continuous conflict.
For eg:- One may have the destiny to became an artist and he shows these strong traits from childhood but his desire based upon the strong influence of his surrounding tells him that he should be a doctor. He may become a doctor, but his destiny to be a artist keeps haunting him. Such a person loses the satisfaction of being a doctor even though he may be famous doctor .
The  craving that I should have become an artist keeps troubling him.

Krishna addresses this dilemma in the  Bhagvat Gita- he says it is better to perform one’s own duty imperfectely than to pefrom some one else’s duty perfectely.

Therefore it is better to pursue those desires which are destiny based as compared to those desires which are immediate surrounding based.

This was the clash between Duryodhana and Yudhisthira.  Duryodhana’s desire to be king was born not out of his destiny rather it was a  desire born out of his surrounding-
Shakuni’s ill advice....
Dhrithrasthra's ambition ...
His personal stubbornness to ignore  the call of destiny.
Yudhisthira’s desire  was destiny centred and so he ultimately got what he was supposed to get.

One difference between destiny- based desires and influence based desires is that destiny based desires give contentment and increased responsibility, whilst surrounding based desires give some temporary excitement, irresponsibility,and ultimately dissatisfaction and distress.

It is better to struggle to fulfill our destiny based desires and feel responsbilie like Yudhishtira than to suffer like Duryodhana who was influenced by his surrounding based desires for he got nothing but cruel death in the end.

RELUCTANT TO LEAD

Leading is thought of as a privilege, good fortune and a measure of success in life. Hence one tries all sorts of  means to acquire the position of a leader.
Those who are less qualified are more than eager to grab the position of a leader .
If they do acquire this position  by  crafty means they celebrate .
It is an irony that many times the leader  who  is supposed to set an example of being an ideal leader demonstrates  base qualities to come up to the position of becoming a  leader.

On the other hand those who are  qualified  to lead are reluctant to fight the crooks  and acquire that position-- fearing that they will become part of the same league of leaders who are corrupt and crafty.
In such conditions they try to avoid taking positions of leadership for which they are  actualky qualified.

Leadership is not a privilege rather it is a responsibility. Along with every responsibility there are certain resources provided to fulfill the responsibility with efficiency. These resources are not a  source for squandering or enjoying...

In the Ramayana we see that Manthara and Kaikeyi wanted the position of prince hood for Bharata.
Bharata knew very well the responsibility of this position of prince hood.
On the other hand Lord Rama even though he was qualified to lead had never even in his wildest dream thought  about this position.
It is very interesting to note  that even though Bharata did not give in to the selfish and cruel desire  of his mother of his accepting prince hood... this very reluctance and obstinacy to accepting the position became his qualification to lead Ayodhya on behalf of Rama for the next fourteen years. 
What  he was fighting not to accept, that attitude itself became the qualification for ruling for next fourteen years on behalf of Rama.  Was Kaikeyi happy in this scenario? 
Valmiki does not answer this question but we can be assured that even she  realized that it was not a happy position to be in .
Rather it was a situation to ponder and reflect over .
Her idea of leadership versus Bharata's idea of leadership.
For Bharata the position was a responsibility not a privilege and that position was only the right of Rama. For Kaikeyi the  position was a privilege and a source of power to show off.

Those who are reluctant are qualified to lead and those who are too eager and scheming are trouble makers for themselves and for others.

It is our choice  whether to have an attitude like Kaikeyi to lead or have an attitude like that of Bharata to lead.  The result will certainly be completely opposite.
One will be an impetus to growth in the society  and create a legacy of leaders .
The other will create a legacy of scheming and conspiring  leaders who squander the resources for self enjoyment and cause pain to those whom they lead. 

FRIENDSHIP FRIES OR FLYIES

Friendship is one of the most common words and relationships known to one and all but its experience is reserved for the lucky few.

Mahabharat has instructions for both – one who has a friend and one who is a friend. If one wants to retain his friendship, its better not to seek any favour from a friend. And if one is a true friend, he must not hesitate to offer everything at his friend’s disposal. This is true friendship. Those who have should offer to those who need. And those who have not should not ask of those who have. It’s a complete circle.

One of the main reasons for the battle of Kurukshetra was the misunderstanding of Draupada and Drona. Drona expected many things from his friend and Draupada, on the other hand, did not understand the need of his school friend. Eventually, both of them and their families destroyed each other.

Karna and Duryodhan’’s friendship was based purely on fulfilling each other’s expectations. Duryodhan gave Karna what he desired – prestige and position and Karna gave Duryodhan fancied – his service and extraordinary skills. Consciously and subconsciously, both exploited each other. In fact, the war occurred because of their strong need. Duryodhana needed power to rule and Karna needed position to be recognized. Unfortunately, both died miserably trying to use each other – one consciously and the other subconsciouisly.

Friendship between Krishna and Arjuna existed on the platform of purity and nothing else.

Krishna asked Arjuna to choose Krishna, who would neither fight the war nor raise any weapon, instead of the Narayani Sena. In a normal world, it is an easy choice to make; anyone would choose the army. But Arjuna chose Krishna. Why? -Because he was simply looking for friendship. And in reciprocation, Krishna gave Himself to Arjuna, His wealth of knowledge in the form of the Gita, the power of His protection, and His willingness to break a promise to safeguard his friend. Result? –It was friendship, the real one, where both sides wanted to be used by the other consciously, not for themselves but to create a Dharmik governance.

Krishna and Arjuna’s was a true friendship. So choosing the right person for friendship is very important. It was the greatness of Sri Krishna to choose Arjuna as His friend and Arjuna felt most fortunate, grateful and humbled by this gesture of the Lord, feeling and knowing he didn’t deserve the privilege.

So what do we choose? Expectations or exploitations or extending ourselves for one another?

COMPETENT OR COMPETITIVE ???

One of the most asked questions is, ‘who is greater amongst Karna and Arjuna?’

One may answer according to one's own sentiments and feel very strongly about it.

But if we try to learn through the pages of Mahabharata, one thing becomes very clear to us that life is not about proving ourselves, but living for certain core principles. Life is not a running race competition.

The difference between Karna and Arjuna is their belief system. Karna thought that injustice was being done towards him and unfortunately he never came out of that conception. In fact, since it was his habit of blaming others for certain events in his life, eventually when his wheel got stuck and he was not able to recollect the mantra for his special weapons and was facing cruel death, he accused dharma itself to be acting against him, just like a small child may accuse the fire for his burnt finger.

Karna always wanted to prove something, like his own excellence of archery skill over others. He especially wanted to become superior to Arjuna.

On the other hand, Arjuna wanted to perform his actions in a way which was meaningful and Dharmik, instead of trying to prove something.

Therefore, it is not fair to compare Arjuna and Karna. They had a different attitude, approach and goal of life, even though their profession must have been the same.

Karna wanted to be a superior archer. Arjuna wanted to utilize his profession for the cause of dharma.
Karna wanted to be known as the greatest archer, but Dronacharya wanted Arjuna to be greatest archer.

Arjuna was willing to abide by the direction of his friend and Lord, Krishna, to facilitate the upkeep of governance. It was a big task for Arjuna to kill Karna, not because of Karna’s greatness but because he had to do it in a way that will be questioned by many of Karna's followers… by killing him unfairly. He did not want to do it.  But Krishna's logic was that Karna did not deserve a Dharmik and fair fight, he deserved the death which is given to a criminal. It was difficult for Arjuna. He might go down in history for shooting the wrong shot but he did choose to shoot the wrong shot for the right cause!
On the other hand, Karna was not even willing to abide by his friend Duryodhana for whose sake he had earlier rejected all good advice given by his father Surya himself, mother Kunti and Bhisma. He chose not to fight till Bhisma lived, because he felt Bhisma insulted him and caused great inconvenience to his friend. He independently decided not to kill the other Pandavas. He took all these decisions, even though his friend Duryodhana wanted otherwise.

To conclude, Karna was fighting for his own self, to prove he was better than everyone else, choosing to follow his own wayward mind and cloudy intelligence.

On the other hand, Arjuna was fighting for dharma and part of that was to fight his own challenging mind. When he was not able to ascertain, he was honest to approach Krishna and have a dialogue with Him and follow his good counsel.

Thus, when we compare, let us compare the right kind of people for the right reason rather than comparing the wrong kind of people for the wrong reason.

LIVING, DYING AND MAKING A LEADER

The journey of leadership, when based on responsibility, is a greater struggle because responsible people have to fight leaders who are position bound. So some fight for position and some for responsibility, and the clash always occurs between these two kinds of people. At the end of the day, when seen purely from a profit point of view, people with responsibility lose the same amount of resources as people who are fighting for power. So from a Buddhistic perspective, it is all a waste so one rather give up all attachment and focus  on Nirvana. This certainly makes sense but in the world we live in, it is irrelevant and impractical. Leadership is an unavoidable need of this world.

While winning the war of Kurukshetra, the Pandavas were losing their family members, in fact their future legacy was about to be extinguished. The Kurus killed Abhimanyu and Ashwatthama brutally killed all other sins if Draupadi. He was about to wipe out the very last heir of their family who was still in the womb. Lord Krishna protected him within the womb of Uttara, knowing that in future, the need for ideal leadership legacy would arise. He didn’t just protect the position of the Pandava family in the count of leaders, he safeguarded the legacy of continuous sacrificial spirit of the Pandavas, knowing only such dedication brings good governance.

Abhimanyu died for this spirit. Uttara chose to follow suit by living a life of sacrifice in this world. Abhimanyu’s death and Uttara’s life shared the same valour and their combined spirit brought Parikshit into this world, who had the additional quality of being protected by Krishna.

If you find a successful leader, that is one who leads and does not grab, observe his dedication and also the sacrifice his family makes. And if you find a power hungry leader, observe how he exploits. You will see the difference between the power-hungry and the sacrifice-hungry and the results their respective actions bring about.

The great war was between saving the family of Pandavas and saving the family Duryodhana. One stood for responsibility while the other wanted the power that emerges from the position. One group died brutally and so do the other,  but their purposes were different and so is the legacy, which  they’ve left us with to follow.

FORGIVENESS FORGOTTEN

Diversity in the characters of humans is caused by each individual’s background influences, which one can hardly overcome. When one acts otherwise, he or she often creates a disastrous example.

Dronacharya was a great teacher but excessive  attachment to his son made him cruelly ambitious, consciously avoid following his core nature of being a Brahmana, who is supposed to be large hearted, even though he has less resources to live with. He made a vicious circle around his own life, and got involved with adharma. And this chakra was stronger and deadlier than what he formed to destroy young Pandava Abhimanyu. Dronacharya couldn’t escape this chakra till he was released from his bondage by the sages enlightening him, Yudhishthira lying to him and Dhrishthadyumna killing him.

As a Brahmana, Drona possessed the great qualities of learning and teaching. He even taught Dhrishthadyumna, knowing well that he would be the one to kill Drona. He taught Arjuna everything without fearing that Arjuna will become better than his teacher. He was not bothered about his superior position. He was just a great teacher with no competitive spirit against his students. But then why was he killed by adharma by the very people he taught?

Dronacharya was not blind like Dhritarashtra, but he was blinded by the obsessive attachment to his son and performed many adharmik actions in the War field. He had to be terminated, but in power he was unconquerable. Someone so powerful and fighting for adharma can be really viscious and cruel. Pandavas were faced with a dilemma. Dronacharya living meant that his adharma would cause great cruelty to their army. If he lived, dharma would be stifled. Krishna asked Yudhishthira to speak the lie and eliminate Drona, who had given up his nature of ‘ksama’ or forgiveness. Yudhishthira had to use a weapon that would work. And a lie became the weapon that helped eradicated Drona; it had the power to make him throw his weapon so that Dhrishthadyumna could stop him from being adharmik.

When a forgiving Brahaman becomes viciously revengeful and obsessed with attachment, nobody can punish him by any means. But the personification of Dharma, Sri Krishna can use any weapon to put at end to their nasty deeds. Therefore, to stop adharma, it is more important to find solutions that work rather than just those that are right.

We are forced to make choices in life may be adharma of telling lie but it is meant for higher cause and personal agenda are not involved then it may be the thing to do even though apparently it is not right