MARRIAGE DISASTER OR DEDICATION

Abhimanyu was married to Uttara when his parents were  preparing for war with the Kurus. Both the parties must  have had an inkling about the uncertainity of life due to the impending war. 

From a  pure practical point of view it was not a wise decision on the part of King of Virata to marry his daughter to young Abhimanyu, who was more enthused about the  proposal of war than  marriage. He was eager to fight for justice on behalf of his parents whom the Kurus had cheated in the gambling match.

Virata was willing to put his daughter in a very difficult situation by arranging her marriage with Abhimanyu, who could be killed within  a few days or a month after his marriage. Why would some one do this -  instead why not wait till she could be assured of some certainty to have a long happy married life. And sure enough she did become a widow within a few months of her marriage. Her husband was brutally killed by six maharathis. So what was her gain? Simply suffering?

No situations have only one perspecetive.
Virata was a great king, and had respect towards the pandavas.  Marrying his daughter to Abhimanyu was certainly not  a materially profitable deicion from one point of view.  In this situation Uttara said she was willing to take the responsibility of allowing her husband to perform the great sacrifice and become  the wife of an immortal husband.

 Abhimanyu  planted the seed of his heart and his very existence of being very dear to his parents and a loving nephew of Krishna, in the form of his son Pariksita before the great sacrifice.
Pariksita became the famous pandava grand son.
He ruled for  more years than the pandavas, and  was a great devotee of the supreme God  Krishna.

Bhagavata, the Great purana was spoken non stop for seven days  and seven nights for the sake of Pariksita.

This discourse is immortal and has became the  life and soul  of all vaishanvas, and the heart beat of Indians. The Bhagvata was one of the major text books in school till the Britishers came to India and impletented their education system.

Abhimanyuu did die early, but he was like a  powerful medicine that goes into our system and destroys the disease itself and along with disappearance of the disease the medicine  also becomes non existent.
“Sacrifice”  of the medicine's existence cures the patient of his disease.  Similarly, Abhimany’s death was  not death rather his dedication for the cause of the pandvas. So  it created  a legacy of  kings who were responsible and devotional.

If we had the facility and access  of asking Uttara the wife of Abhimnayu, who  was his wife  only for a few days and a widow for many years, we could ask her - whether she preferred  a happy and long married life or being Abhimanyu 's wife for a  few days?
What would she choose?
She would certainy choose  to marry Abhimanyu several times rather than marrying  anyone  and living just  "happily."

Both Uttara and Abhimnyu had  such an admirable  attitude that they invoked Pariksita a great soul in her womb who became a great emperor for the world.

We have to ask ourselves, was Virata wrong in his decision?
Is marriage an act simply to be happy?
Or is marriage an act  to bring exemplary citizens to the world who are a boon and not a burden to  this world.

SENSUALITY AND SENSE OF DUTY

Arjuna is known for his focus and sense of duty.He was seldom distracted from his duty. One who is focused, feels the satisfaction of putting his full attention in doing whatever he chooses to do or he is told to do by his superiors.

One disadvantage of such focus is that some focussed people are less human friendly and more in the mode of enhancing their competency.  Focus can lead to a narrow out look towards life.
The achievers syndrome from which  focussed people suffer,  can make them use people for their success.  For this they  do not mind compromising with their relationships.

Modernity is more object friendly and less people friendly. One prefers to sacrifice one’s affectionate relationship just to increase  resources through hightened efficiency.
To gain higher efficiency one has to work harder, working harder means being less available for meaningful friendly relationships with one’s own loving family members and friends.

Arjuna on one hand was increasing his efficiency but not at the cost of his relationship.
For him all achievements were only to increase his affectionate relationship with his divine family, the pandavas.

When he was in the heaven, Indra arranged a dance show for Arjuna. This was pefromed by the best of the Apsaras in heaven.
Vyasadeva writes, Arjuna was surrounded by apsaras in this heavenly celebration but he was unaffected.
He was focused on going back and being with his family members.
All these beautiful damsels were not able to entertain or distract Arjuna.
It was not because they lacked the ability or attitude to serve Arjuna, but it was Arjuna who was looking for a  meaningful relationship and hence this show did not matter to  him.

We need more Arjunas who are focused in achieving and part of that foucs is to never loose  focus on maintaining the relationship with those people who you love and care for.

Let us accept  the wholesome Arjuna, and grow in life, rather than  a part of Arjuna who is less than Arjuna for part Arjuna can make our difficulties grow ...

EMOTIONALLY INTELLECTUAL

It is often seen that intellectual people are less emotional and emotional people are less reasonable. When these two kinds of people are on the opposite sides of the table can any conclusion be reached?
The intellectual person deals beyond people, and emotional person deals beyond reason, so how do you reach any conclusion in these conditions?

When Bhima and Draupadi were discussing with Yudhisthira, about punishing Duryodhana, Bhima and Draupadi were  both charged with emotions and willing to punish Duryodhana instantly. Her approach was  making deicison based on emotions.Bhima supported her. On the other hand  Yudhisthira was  thoughtful, analytical and reflective .
He failed to take any substantial decision in the above circumstance.
This irritated both Bhima and Draupadi.

Krishna in the Bhagavat Gita explains, that it is a combination of buddhi and-bhava which we must use to deal   with situations in life to live a life if dharma. When Arjuna had to shoot Bhisma, he was overwhelmed with emotions but tough decisions had to be taken.
It was a painful decision.The heart ached and cried but  the hand was stretched so that the arrows could enter the body of Bhisma.

When Krishna had to leave Vrindavana it was painful for him but  establishing dharma out of the land of Vrindavana was the purpose of his coming to this world.

When the balancing act of bhava and intelligence is achieved then we do not lose our heart, and with the heart the action of taking decision becomes artful. The heart and head balance gives skillfull action through the senses.That is the call of  the Bhagvat Gita.

Therefore Krishna teaches us personally through his personality
that living a life  of dharma means life is love laden with lots of wisdom.  Therefore the  Gita is not only logical talk, it is love compassion  and  concern filled talk. Therefore it is  known as  the“Song of God.”--  The “Bhagavad Gita”

Song but meaningful, meaningful but song, what a combination!!
Therefore it is still fresh with melody and meaning.
Is there anything like this?

PRYING TO FRY

Monitoring, meddling, mediating, or mentoring have the same action  at its core but the results  of each action are completely different. 
Monitoring a small baby  is a sign of concern, affection and care.
Meddling as the interrogating officer in the dispute is healthy and expected.
Mediating, as the expert in conflict resolution leads to cooperative living amongst the people.
Mentoring  heals the distress of the disturbed.

But when the child grows up to be a  teenager.....
Monitoring of the father and mother causes irritation to him.
Meddling in somebody else’s affair becomes a rude and discourteous act.
Mediating becomes irrelevant when one of the party does not want it.

Mentoring done without the desire of the mentee brings about no positive gain and  becomes a disqualification of the mentor .
In the Mahabharata Dhritharasthra wanted Maitreya Rishi to mentor and counsel Duryodhana with regards to a compromise.  Duryodhana not  wishing to be mentored did not hear anything.
Instead he insulted Maitreya Rishi.
Duryodhana got no advice  from Maitreya Rishi and on the contrary got  a curse that his thighs
would be destroyed which would be the cause of his death.
Dhristharasthra himself would not hear what he did not like to hear, if any one gave him advice which was contrary  to what he would like to hear he would snap and be upset.

Initally Arjuna was argumentative and overwhelmed with emotions, and when Arjua had the above attiude of" I think I know all" Krishna would not speak,  he would only ask questions to Arjuna.
Only when Arjuna  surrendered and was willing to hear and get good counsel from Krishna did the lord speak, and illuminate Arjuna.
Arjuna  on hearing the gita was enlightened but Dhristharasthra who heard the same bhagvad gita experienced no change.
Teaching is the responsibility of  a teacher, but learning?

IT'S DIRTY BUT IMPORTANT

The body is made in such a way that it has many functions.  Some functions we may despise, but we cannot disregard.They are very much a part of our daily life. Every day without fail we respond to them, if they stop working or over work then we get disturbed.  I am referring to the process  and function of evacuation.

Similarly in this world there are some important jobs that need to be done.
We may  not like these jobs  may want to avoid them but we cannot. I am referring to  politics, and politicans. We may hate them but we need them. These positions cannot remain vacant, if good people do not occupy the positions then some one else shall occupy the position.

Unfortunately the most impact creating occupation  in society is currently occupied by unwanted people. The good people chose to work for multinationals thinking there is no corruption there  and we  can do our work work honestly in multi nationals. This  is exactly how Drona and Bhisma worked honestly but for  the most crooked people.
Dharma is very subtle. Our personal honesty to collective dishonesty is as bad as personal dishonesty.

Therefore interestingly all the royal kings  are the ones who heard all scriptures.
In fact all major books were spoken to politicians. Bhagavad gita was spoken to Arjuna on the battlefield, and Bhagavata was spoken to Pariksita another king. Such kings are Rajarshi, they are saints among the kings.
However their saintliness is not at the cost of not punishing the culprit, its not about not taking tough decisions.Their toughness is  displayed in their indifference towards the culprit, who may even be known to them or related to them.

Arjuna had to be tough, in giving punishment to Bhisma, and Drona, not because they were his  personal enemies, rather on the  personal front they were two people whom Arjuna would do anything  to please . Instead he shot at them terminated them, because dharma was asking him to take a call to stop their autrocities.

Good for bad or bad for good, so that good prevails.

GAMBLING, WOMEN AND ROBBERY

Chanakya  Pandit very wittily says, "one who listens to gambling in the morning, women in the afternoon, and robbery in the night becomes a member of the refined people."

Even as recent as 1830 the village schools in India made these activities common amongst the young children and assured them of  great success in life.

What was Chanakya Pandit speaking about? He was speaking about the life line of Bharata bhumi:
1.The  Mahabharata
2.The Ramayana
3.The Bhagavat.
With all kinds of diversity, dress, language, food and diverse kinds of worship, one thing was common in schools --- the study of these three books.

Mahabharata teaches us life skills. Ramayana teaches us characters skills.  Bhagavata teaches us love skills.  Learning these essentil skills makes one a wholesome and skillful person, an integrated personality with  a perfect perception.

The foundational principles for any one to live, grow and leave from this world are:
1.Love
2.Good character
3.Art of living

Those who have live by these foundational principles are said to have  traversed the  journey of life successfully.

Gambling, women, and robbery is going on but it is  going on without these three wisdom books.
The effects of what  we are  creating are  clearly visible :
A society with less heart but many artists, muicians and actors
Less sportsman spirit  in life, but  many sportstars,
Lots of  wealth but less meangingful relationships.
Less understanding in spite of do many  communication techniques
Lack of health and stale eatables even though man has access to a great variety of food.

If the Nation cannot  make our holy books a part of our compulsory education at least we can morally as individuals can study it. .
We have the right, responsibility and urgency to talk about gambling, women and robbery .

Choice is ours which kind of gambling, women and robbery we want to speak about and based upon that we will be respond in life.

NIGHT TIME MURDER

Ashwatthama  was a  Brahaman by birth and was supposed to posses the qualities of  forgiveness, compassion, large heartedness, free from cruelty, simplicity and austerity due to his being a Brahman. 
Brahmanas are supposed to be thoughtful and analytical during the day and reflective at night.
They analyse their good  and bad behaviour, and beg forgiveness from superiors within their heart, and this way they are peaceful.

But Ashwattama  in spite of his being a Brahmana was razing with intense passion, and contemplating the murder of the last heir of the pandavas.
He brutally murdered them at night, strangulated  Dristhadymna, and butchered Shikhandi.
It was the deadliest crime in the entire battle of Kuruksetra -even Duryodhana kind of condemned this act of killing the kuru kula.
Ashwatthama even after this condemnation continued scheming to kill.
He wanted to kill the last member of pandava family -Pariksita who was in the womb of Uttara the wife of Abhimanyu.

When he was caught  by  the pandavas, Krishna gave him  severe punishment, in the form of not killing him .
Krishna did not punish Ashwatthama by killing him the way Bhima killed Dushyshana or Duryodhana  for that was instataneous punishment . Nor did he give Ashwatthama a suffering like that of Dhritharasthra for a few years. Instead he  gave  him a long life of 3000 years  with a body that smelt rotten in which he had to wander without shelter .

In the entire Mahabharata, Krishna killed many demons, punished  mighty kings, and rectified few gods who had become temporarily arrogant, and all of  them were either killed or punished and were then liberated and blessed.
Ashwatthama  who had the privileges of being a brahmana  had committed  henious crimes .
So Ashwatthama alone in the entire mahabharat in spite of his having the  position of  being the  son of the  Great Drona  was not  killed  blessed or liberated .
Instead Krishna punished him by not killing him but by  allowing him to live with  the stench of guilt and restlessness for 3000 years .
What  is pertinent is not what we are born with  but rather  how we use what we are born with...

IN BETWEEN

In a relationship both the parties are responsible for making a relationship work.
Whether in a father- son
father - daughter
husband- wife relationship
in fact in any  relationship, one cannot say that only one side is responsible to make the relationship work.

In relationships those who have  greater resources  have greater responsbilites too.
Strangely when the persons with greater responsibilities make a mistake, the reaction from their suboridinate is intense, but their superiors are more willing to give them another chance.
In fact when Indra made a mistake, he was forgiven for he had also taken a bigger responsibility.
In the story of Govardhana, Indra had the audacity to offend Krishna who is the Supreme Brahaman. However
Krishna  whilst  protecting  the vrindavan vasis,  forgave  Indra in spite of his audacity to offend Krishna.
It may sound  like injustice but since the persons with greater responsibilities have the capacity to handle big jobs they are given a chance  to rectify, reform and re-act positively.

In  the Mahabharata we see Duryodhana was forgiven many times for various  crimes right from
Trying to poision Bhima...
Burn the pandavas ...
Make them lose everything during the gambling match...
To Even  attempting to strip off Draupadi..
The Pandavas were willing to forgive all  the crimes if Duryodhan would change. 
Why? If Duryodhan changed he had more faciilties to offer greater good to the society.
But  since he persisted in doing what he was doing  the punishment meted out to him was very severe.  Mahabharata shows us that a brutal punishment is meted out  to persons with great responsibilities for not changing.
Leaders aren’t  free to behave whimsically just because they are leaders .Their responsibilities are higher and the  punishment meted out to them is much more severe, but between the position and punishment there are  places and a few chances to rectify.

Subordinates are punished immediately as they make mistakes. But they are given lesser punishment due to  lesser responsibility. For subordiantes between their position and punishment there is a lesser chance of forgiveness.
This is because  their position or their punishment is very personal and does not effect the society at large.

Karma cycle is precise and just.  Understandiing it is complex and difficult. But still it is right and natural

YOU AND YOUR’S

The Mahabharata sometimes presents certain subtle clashes between the loving and the loved by consciously or subconsciously defying his need or avoiding the systems that he may have established to live a harmonious life.

These subtle clashes arouse war-like situations. Bhishma had great love for Krishna; Even the Mahabharata very clearly states his devotion to Lord Vishnu or Lord Krishna. But he was one of the main hurdles in establishing Krishna’s desire on planet Earth - ‘Dharma governance’ led by Yudhishthira Maharaj. Unfortunately, Bhishma’s personal dharma, which certainly had no personal benefits but was for the kuru kula, was clashing with the cause of overall Dharma and Krishna. He just wasn’t able to give up his personal dharma that was based on the body, and the collective dharma wouldn’t allow him to fulfill that. He made his choice and it was his personal dharma over Krishna’s. Loving God is good but what about respecting Him? Rituals of loving are, in a sense, simple, but executing the lifestyle that is friendly and coherent with God’s system is not so easy. When one worships God but disrespects His own system, he falls into the same predicament as Bhishma or Drona. He loved God but they chose to be the biggest obstacles in re-establishing hHis system. So the very person they loved had to eliminate them in a rather painful way. So bad, but so real.

This dilemma exists in our lives too. One may love his master, parents, husband, wife, institution, or a teacher and so on, but how do we know if he or she is really loyal? Loyalty is not emotional; rather it is reasonable and logical. Such loyalty is the real test of one’s love, not only love for the figure but also love for the system, which of course has to be reasonable and logical. Can we follow that sign of substance?

In this world, we see many of us showing flashy love towards God but does it serve as a flashlight for God’s system?

DECISIONS ARE NOT THE DESTINATION, BUT THE JOURNEY

Certain decisions are considered as destinations by some people, making them so rigid that if change, if would be like questioning their integrity, So they remain determined, which seems to others like illogical stubbornness. Decisions are therefore, a journey to reach the wholesome destination, which benefits a large number of people over a long duration of time.

Thus, Dharmik scriptures offer many perspectives to life’s situations, not just one-sided. It may certainly give prominence to a single dimension over the others, based on the time and place it was observed in. When the same situation is seen from another perspective, the scriptures may present different decisions. But it is not fickle and restless, rather active and practical.

The Pandavas marrying Draupadi is one of the most challenging parts of the Mahabharata, but situations force them to marry her. From life’s general perspective and for most people, this decision was rather adharmik and scandalous. But Vyasadeva, Krishna and Narada debated over this and proved that it was Draupadi’s destiny, not some whimsical decision by the Pandavas or Draupadi.

It was strange but never a scandalous or wayward decision. Their journey of entering into this marital alliance led to a series of disputes and discussions. Narada Muni personally recommended certain principles to follow to make the marriage work and gave away all the credit to them. Neither did any of the Pandavas ever fight amongst themselves because of Draupadi nor did she ever consider her decision to be a clog or abyss to which she had fallen prey and was stuck in it helplessly. She traveled this journey with many challenges but never failed to prove that this marriage was fully dharmik at any point. Of course this marriage once only in the history. 

Never after did any one even try to imitate pandavas to venture into this most challenging situation of marrying Draupadi. 

INTIMATE TO ANTI-MATE

There is always a  debate in regards to how to interact with your mate?  Be it your girl friend ,boy friend, wife, husband, teacher, student, or parents.

Respect in realtioniship leads to distance in understanding.
Informatlity in relationships leads to indifference to rigidity.
Intimacy in relationship leads to
1.Inner understanding of your mate.
2.It gives free flow unrestricted love.  3. It allows us to be cool, trendy, and guilt free in our natural shortcomings.
This is the modern, progressive dynamic persepective.
This is the claim of the generation of current times.

The traditionalists retaliate-
1.Present respect in relationship leads to future intimacy.
2.Future intimancy leads to deeper understanding.
3.Deeper understanding leads to respecting the difference and never breaking the relatioinship.
4. Formality leads to orderliness, and allows mates to stay within the limits and creates the success of a good legacy.

The modernist will criticize the traditionalist by saying:
a)In the  name of respect there  is no  freedom.
b)It is dictatorial, one sided and does not allow the growth of younger people.
c)Men abuse women, children are abused by teachers, and  parents teachers abuse their children and students.
So let there be free flow, without any restriction it is free love rather  than forced bondage.

The traiditonalist say all this free flow creates
a)Chaotic situations,
b)No one takes responsibility for any one.
c )In case of marriage there is increased rate of divorce,  and the children suffer.
Intimate relationships in  school and in  colleges with lack of respect  leades to anti-mate.

Gita allows dialogue between student and  teacher Arjuna and Lord  Krishna.
Vedic wisdom is the combinatin of :
1.freedom and discipline
2.intimacy and repsect
3.formality and informality
4 respect and intimacy.

Sita in the Ramayana was very intimate to Rama to the extent, when Sri Rama was hesistant to take her to the forest, she quipped, “ I think my father has married me to aman only from outside.”    Sita at the same time  never crossed her limit to become disrespectful.

The concept of traditionalism was the concept of application of principles to make it work.
Many were not able to implement the principles, but that's not the fault of the principle rather it was the fault of the people who did not know how to apply.

Many students commit suicide in professional colleges when they cannot handle the stress.
Is that the fault of the  college or the student who could not take the stress?
Do you choose to close the school, or the college because  a student commits suicide?
If we chose to close the school or college it would be suicidal would it not?

DHARMA SENSUAL

Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha are the milestones in the human journey towards perfection. When they come together, it becomes integrated living.

‘Artha’ means useful. Does money matter? Is there anyone who can say it doesn’t? Even the greatest of renunciates need some for survival. His dress is the commodity which gives him the ability to get his meal and place to stay.

When one aspect of ‘artha’, i.e. money, is given so much importance then other things that are needed get neglected.

One of the defects of modern civilization is lack of the ability to moderate. When we fail in moderating, it takes us to either one of the extremes.

In the Indian tradition, students were taught to live with less, not nil. Less sensuality, more restrain. This would make the senses less distracted, making the intelligence sharper and more analytical. A self-restrained student is sensitive to his surroundings. He responds to appreciate the good and acts responsibly to change things when they are hostile for the growth of the society. But when the senses are let lose, the stupidity of the student increases. He or she becomes self-absorbed, desensitized to the surroundings.

When one is raised as a student with dharmik values, as an adult, in keeping with the foundation of this training, he works on developing his economical condition, but not at the cost of sensuality. Here, in adulthood, he is able to balance sensuality and self-restraint. Further, as he grows to take to the path of organically withdrawing from life’s responsibility, he would maximize self-restraint and minimize sensuality. And in the last stage of his life, he would have given up all sensuality and self-restraint, completely absorbed in the higher values of life – any of the Yogic processes like Karma, Astanga, Jnana or Bhakti, as recommended in the Gita by Krishna. This would completely transform his life.

The Pandavas learned this art from their childhood. Born and brought up in the ashram, let lose their senses for some time to marry, earn the kingdom, fight the war.  And slowly, as they became old and the time was up, they were able to give up everything and walk into the forest being carried by their own upbringing.

Life of Kauravas was otherwise. They did not live a life of sobriety, neither in their childhood, nor in the adulthood and they didn’t live to see their maturehood. Their senses were brutally abused and being hit by Bhima was simply a detail.

VIRTUOUS WAR OR WAR FOR VIRTUE

It is like asking do you do business for the sake of it or to make profit out of it?
The war of Kuruksetra was not fought with virtue at the centre, but was fought to establish a virtuous kingdom in the future.
When Dharma fights Adharma, on the practical front adharma uses all tactics to win- dharma adharma  and whatever it takes to win. Therefore Adharma is very powerful and enterprising.  But Dharma on the  other hand is constrained by its very rule and has less avenues to win.  When Dharma fights  a virtuous war against Adharma it has hardly any chance of winning.

Lord Krishna decided to play a new game for the pandavas, who were virtuous but losing to adharma.
They were made to change their vision and strategy .
Krishna made them fight the adharmik kaurvas by all means virtue or no virtue,  to establish a virtuous kingdom.

For a dharmik person to give up dharma is adharmik, and in practicing the virtue of dharma he or she finds inner satisfaction .The dharmik or virtuous people are willing to die but not give up  their dharma.
But Krishna taught them a new lesson  "give up dharma for some time to establish dharma for a long time for a large number of people."
Of course it is not that the dharmik person gives up dharma altogether because he loses patience or that he starts believing -“it is not profitable and easy to practice dharma, therefore better to be part of the crowd and follow adharma.”
Most people follow the above trend.  However Krishna was not teaching hopelessness in the course  of practicing dharma, but rather use of tact to establish dharma.

In the Gita  he said to Arjuna  “amongst the gambler I am the greatest cheat.”
This does not mean that krishna is a habitual cheat,  but  rather  he says he uses cheating  against the habitual cheat to end their legacy .This  facilitates establishing the life of transparent relationships  or dharma  where people do not fear being honest and straight.

The reality is that after the war neither Krishna went  around cheating nor were the pandavas  addicted to cheating. They ruled with dharma at the centre and made most  people happy in their area of influence.

ESCAPING RESPONSIBILITY

Dhritharasthra was good at victimizing himself, so that he could rule.
If sympathy  were synonymous to qualification, then tests would not required. Progress requires ability and training. Dhrithrasthra was not qualified, would not be qualified at any time in his life to take the position of king, because of his  disqualification at being born blind.  Based on the principle of sympathy,  he  tried to elevate his unqualified son to be the next king, hoping that society would sympathize with Duryodhana based on Dhritharsthra’s destiny. It was a wrong assumption since  Dhrithrasthra’s lost opportunities at  being disqualified to be  king, could not become the qualification for his son to rule.  This mathematics the kauravas did not understand. In their mind they wanted to rule since their father was disallowed from ruling.
It is strange but true that those who are not qualified want sympathy in the form of elevating their relatives to positions that they are not qualified for .
One’s father’s qualification, does not make the  son a  natural heir to the kingship. He or she has to prove their mettle.   Yudhisthira’s qualifcation  for kingship was not borrowed from his father, rather it was facilitated by the father because he gave the children good values.

Dhristharasthra was not willing to take responsibility for his life events.   Some times a diseased person likes to remain diseased because he finds  sympathy  coming  his way or in other words he relishes the attention  coming his way.
However sympathy is a short lived,  and  the real solution is to take tough steps to avoid , or transcend the disease while living with it. Both require an active involvement of those who  are going through it.

Do you want to live like Dhritharasthra  craving sympathy or like Duryodhana  stealing and grabbing power  or deal with life  like yudhisthira maharaja and just perform your duty?

MUSEUM PIECE OR LIFE REALITY

A billboard once said, “it is not about being good, but being great.”
To that, an idealist said, “it is not about being great, but being good.”
To that, a pessimist said, “it doesn’t matter since everything will be flowing towards flaw-fullness.”
To that, an illusionist said, “nothing actually exists. Good and great are both creations of the mind.” For him, the conception of existence itself is non-existent, and hence, it’s all a myth.

The Mahabharata has all of these opinions but beyond these concepts.

It is important to be great. It is important to be good. It is important to know everything moves towards negativity. And it is important to know that illusion also has a role to play. But what about moving from knowing to acting?

Is simply knowing things relevant in a particular situation enough to turn it into application?

The master strategist of Mahabharata, Krishna speaks about the principle of ‘does it work?’ Are these opinions user-friendly or museum-friendly? Do they lubricate the over all progress of human society?

Therefore Mahabharata deals with the core realities of life. And the solutions or opinions are compellingly substantial and moving-friendly, not stagnant or at worst – regressively negative.

Krishna, in Mahabharata, therefore spoke the Gita with such profundity, reconciling so many concepts and harmonizing them to an extent that it is deeply philosophical, intellectually stimulating, emotionally fulfilling, devotionally uplifting and practically very simple to implement.

It is neither a museum piece, nor meant for the few elitists, nor for creating madness for the mass. It is very eclectic, minus the hotchpotch. The beauty of dharma is that it is wholesomely natural.

It is not of biased opinion although there is profound opinion. It is utility-friendly. It trains everyone to be off this world and not of this world.

Krishna, therefore, remains evergreen because He lets us know in the beginning of Gita itself that life is not always green. Sometimes, it even becomes dry, some other times it becomes wet and soggy without the green between the other times.

Only the one who is philosophically realist can realize this philosophy in his or her daily life.