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 

DOUBT v/s FAITH

Doubt and faith are always at loggerheads. Faith instills confidence in unseen reality and implies leading a life based on values that are not experienced in the past. Doubt, on the other hand, makes on continuously suspicious about the unseen future, urging one to move forward slowly or hampering his movement.

One may feel that the two can never reconcile. But when doubt transforms into inquiry, faith becomes reasonable, logical and scientific.

Faith, without reason and logic, is dangerously violent. It gives rise to fanaticism and bigotry. Dharmik scriptures teach us to have deep faith. It is called so because it is very logical. Apart from being logical, it gives us experiences of how it is beyond logic.

Arjuna was doubtful about his involvement in the war. He had difficulties reasoning the occurrence of the war and the bloodshed it would cause. He had many reasons against fighting. His doubts produced reservations about the outcome of the war. But instead of making his destiny bound to doubt, he chose to use them as tools of enlightenment. When presented faithfully to Lord Krishna, his doubts turned into profound inquiries, which were real, compassionate and practical. And it was these doubts of Arjuna that secured an immortal place in historical legacies because it paved the way for the Bhagavad Gita.

The Gita begins with doubt but concludes in faith. So this combination is not conflicting but cooperative, when doubters are like Arjuna and the answers are provided by Krishna.

Vedic scriptures are, therefore, full of inquires, which is why they are a dialogue and not a monologue.

When doubt haunted Yudhishthira with regards to the effects of the war, they choked his existence. Lord Krishna took him to grand old man Bhishma deva, who was lying on the bed of arrows, regretful and grateful at the same. His regret was for the mistakes he made and gratitude for the kindness of the Lord for allowing him to watch Dharma being established by letting the Pandavas win.

How Bhishma deva dispelled the doubtful Yudhishthira to take the reigns of Hastinapura is simply amazing. It forms some of the important parts of the Mahabharata. Doubts of Yudhishthira quickly took the shape of inquiries towards Bhishma and that dialogue became a great knowledge bank. It was faith giving not only to Yudhishthira but to all those who wish to do the same.

Are we ready to make turn out doubts into inquiries so that we become faithful? Or are we stuck in the darkness of doubt? The choice is ours.

THE ART OF REVOLUTION

An expert surgeon is efficient at the art of performing precise surgery and simultaneously he has a plan to create fast relief. Surgery and relief have to take place with the same expertise, so that the patient can continue with his life and even try to increase his productivity.
We may summarize in 4 steps, diagnosis, precise surgery, relief and increased productivity or at least bringing back to the healthy condition.Some leaders are good at creating a revolution against corruption or bad governance; they diagnose it and perform surgery to topple over the bad governance. But are they capable to give relief by replacing it and even further, make it better?  Governance is a great art. It is not simply about toppling over the bad leader, but also replacing him with a good one, otherwise it results in nothing but anarchy. There are so many historical incidents wherein the bad leaders were toppled over by the revolutionary people, but they failed to offer good governance, in fact what they gave was only the burden of anarchy. Krishna also stirred revolutions against many powerful kings and dictators. Not killing them could give rise to a legacy of violence. But killing them could result in either inefficient governance or no governance at all, causing anarchy. Nevertheless, Lord Krishna, expert at the art of revolution, also mastered the art of restoring and re-establishing. He appointed Yudhishthira as the next king.Being appointed as a king after the massive world war was a great responsibility, somewhat similar to being appointed as a housing cooperation's chairperson, after a massive disaster of an earthquake.   Yudhisthira, however, not only reversed the situation but also created a responsible life for all.  One who knows the art of governance should be able to take us through the complete process….
1-Diagnosis (creating revolution),
2-remove the rotten limb (toppling the bad governance),
3-give relief (start placing things in their proper place by replacing with good governance) and
4-finally make the productivity increase (prosperity starts increasing).

VIOLENTLY BEAUTIFUL

Before Hanuman decided to jump across the ocean to know mother Sita’s whereabouts, he was quiet in a reflective mood as if he was not a part of the ‘search mission’. The demeanor of Hanuman before deciding to jump was rather non-violent and modest, which normally would be appreciated. But on deciding to jump, the same Hanuman completely changed his disposition. He became boastful, even stated himself to be greater than Garuda and became violent. The weight of his body caused the mountain to vomit minerals in liquid form. The animals were disturbed. Snakes, provoked turbulently from their slumber, started throwing up poison from their mouths. When Hanuman took off, most trees were uprooted.    Plants, flowers and creepers flew in the air and were scattered hither thither.  It was as if an earthquake and hurricane had occurred together. The great Valmiki Maharshi describes these scenes very beautifully. There was so much violence but so much beauty. He says, “All the flowers were coming with Hanuman to see him off and went along with him over a long distance.  Just like relatives come to see off the departing guest. And the large trees that were uprooted were the relatives who came to see off Rama to a little distance.” Valmiki gives the flavour of opposites in one instance – cruelty in beauty and beauty in violence. He also points out the non-utility of peaceful inaction in this situation. Hanuman is beautifully tough and violently graceful. It is wonderful how Ramayana and Mahabharata are violently sweet and passionately compassionate. Can we assimilate and digest these pills, which are difficult to swallow but, at the same time, very digestible and sweet?

JUSTICE IS DIFFICULT, REVENGE IS EASY

We often see that the abused tend to follow the legacy of becoming the abuser. Students who get ragged in college go on to become the perpetrators as they become seniors. Quite often, a daughter-in-law bossed by the mother-in-law takes a similar role when she becomes one.

We may also observe that if one wants to take direct action against the party that hurts, troubles or abuses him, its easy for that person to harm or even kill them. This ruins the lives of both parties – the abused and the abuser. Revenge doesn’t build; it is destructive. In this vicious cycle of abuse and revenge, both are destroyed.

In fact, some adharmik forces use both of them for personal agenda. In Indian history, we see the great Jayachandra being revengeful of his own son-in-law Prithviraja. The latter helped the invader and both Jayachandra and Prithviraja were ruined.

Ambha wasn’t seeking justice. She was in quest of revenge, which she did get. But what was the over all gain? – Killed within 8 days. Brutally.

Seeking justice in the hand requires hard work, long waiting and being Dharmik to the core.

Pandavas were reluctant for justice. It meant overhauling the entire system. Abuse against them was an issue but they had to represent the whole of Hastinapura and beyond, who were oppressed by the misrule of Duryodhana and party. On a personal front, Bhima could’ve killed them, but that would’ve been injustice to the others who also suffered.

People fear the hard labour so they mostly prefer being abused and in turn abuse others, and feel good. They may even run away from reality by changing their attitude saying, “they’re seniors after all. They have given us so much, etc.”

Justice requires sacrifice and revenge demands hatred and anger. Justice builds, revenge breaks. Justice is conceptual while revenge is personal. In justice, we fight values; in revenge, we fight the person. In revenge, we minimize a family or a person. In justice, we reform and rebuild a society.

What are we looking for? – Easy revenge or difficult but dharmik justice?

The choice is ours and the consequences too. 

STUPIDLY STUBBORN

Stubbornness with reason and logic, born out of past analysis and inkling of the future, can be perceived as determination. Stubbornness with imaginary dreaming, unrealistic expectations and no access to the historical past, can be called as obstinacy. 

Therefore, determination and obstinacy may resemble each other, but their outcome is outright different. One helps to grow towards integrated development, and the other disintegrates the wheel of life, if at all there is any growth it is only isolated growth, like a tumor which suffocates.

Ravana and Duryodhana experienced defeat after defeat.  After analyzing to understand why they were defeated, the most expert people gave their advice, “the best course of action for Duryodhana is not to give up action bur rather be active in making alliance with the Pandavs”, and to Ravana, “return back Sita, with lots of gifts, to Lord Rama.” But both were determined to ignore the wholesome advice.

Thus, the mere presence of qualities is neither good nor bad. One who has those qualities to the deeper extent, where does he use them? And how does he use them? They can be good, bad or ugly based upon the purpose.

Duryodhana’s determination was destructive.  Bhagiratha’s determination to bring mother Ganga to the earthly planet was constructive.

Non violence towards all is the general policy, but non violence towards abusers of the innocent is as worse as the abuse and violence itself, it is inhuman and insensitive.

Good qualities may be good, but how are we going to use them? That choice makes all the difference in the world.

 

WISHING OR BLESSING

According to the Dharmik tradition, blessings ward off   inauspiciousness. Therefore, even the adharmik people of the times of the Mahabharata war had great faith in the power of heartfelt blessings.

Jarasandha, who was ambitious to be the king of the world, would everyday invite hundreds of Brahamans to bless him to remove the hurdles in the accomplishment of his ambition of emperorship.  Blessings were there, but before they could fructify Jarasandha lost his life, when he was punished by the mighty Bhima who had received the blessings of his Lord Krishna. 

Duryodhana went seeking blessings from his mother before the battle. Gandhari so wished he would win, but she just could not bless him with victory.

‘Blessings’ are reduced to simply ‘Wishing’ when the person who is blessed is undeserving, or the person who blesses is unqualified to bless or he is attached to adharmik people, like Dhritharasthra was towards Duryodhana.

Also, simply ‘Wishing’ gets transformed into a ‘Blessing’ when the person who is at the receiving end deserves the same. When Bhisma, Dronacharya, and Krpacharya blessed Yudhisthira before the beginning of the battle, they helplessly did so, because Yudhisthira greatly deserved. They had no choice but to bless him.

Therefore, Mahabharata was the war between the wishing people and the blessed people. The undeserving and the deserving. The cursed and the heartfelt blessed.

The Vedic wisdom therefore says: if someone abuses the less privileged, the helpless, the downtrodden, then the abusive people, however strong they may be, will drown in the very tears of the abused people. In the Ramayana therefore, Mandodari, while crying in front of the dead body of her husband Ravana, said, “You haven’t been killed by the arrows of Rama, but you have been drowned by the tears of Mother Sita.”

So let’s not wish but bless, because wishing is a dream state which might turn into a nightmare but blessing is a vision which transforms into substantial reality.

What do we want?  Blessings?  Or only wishes?According to the Dharmik tradition, blessings ward off   inauspiciousness. Therefore, even the adharmik people of the times of the Mahabharata war had great faith in the power of heartfelt blessings.

Jarasandha, who was ambitious to be the king of the world, would everyday invite hundreds of Brahamans to bless him to remove the hurdles in the accomplishment of his ambition of emperorship.  Blessings were there, but before they could fructify Jarasandha lost his life, when he was punished by the mighty Bhima who had received the blessings of his Lord Krishna. 

Duryodhana went seeking blessings from his mother before the battle. Gandhari so wished he would win, but she just could not bless him with victory.

‘Blessings’ are reduced to simply ‘Wishing’ when the person who is blessed is undeserving, or the person who blesses is unqualified to bless or he is attached to adharmik people, like Dhritharasthra was towards Duryodhana.

Also, simply ‘Wishing’ gets transformed into a ‘Blessing’ when the person who is at the receiving end deserves the same. When Bhisma, Dronacharya, and Krpacharya blessed Yudhisthira before the beginning of the battle, they helplessly did so, because Yudhisthira greatly deserved. They had no choice but to bless him.

Therefore, Mahabharata was the war between the wishing people and the blessed people. The undeserving and the deserving. The cursed and the heartfelt blessed.

The Vedic wisdom therefore says: if someone abuses the less privileged, the helpless, the downtrodden, then the abusive people, however strong they may be, will drown in the very tears of the abused people. In the Ramayana therefore, Mandodari, while crying in front of the dead body of her husband Ravana, said, “You haven’t been killed by the arrows of Rama, but you have been drowned by the tears of Mother Sita.”

So let’s not wish but bless, because wishing is a dream state which might turn into a nightmare but blessing is a vision which transforms into substantial reality.

What do we want?  Blessings?  Or only wishes?

PREJUDICE

Being judicious is not easy. Even the most honest people find it difficult to be so. Why? Because of the vice of prejudice.
Prejudice means preconceived opinion, influenced by repeated experiences and hearing from others. A person, who eats only a particular kind of food for long time or since birth, will have prejudice against other kinds of food, or for that matter against everything different than what he or she has experienced, and more so against the civilization which he hasn’t experienced.
Prejudice is very deeply rooted….

Prejudice can be violent…. without even giving any feeling of remorse or guilt. Rather, one might justify, “we are benefitting the other aborigine civilization by wiping out its people and creating abetter kind of civilization.” Therefore, it is cruel to be prejudiced without having an understanding of the civilization of others.
In the Mahabharata, Jarasandha didn’t deem fit that the hundreds of kings whom he had imprisoned had any right to live. He was offering them as a sacrifice. It was a murderous plan, fortunately foiled by Lord Krishna.
Prejudice can be offensive….

In certain parts of the world some religious people believe women to be soulless, and hence they find nothing wrong in exploiting them. 

Some consider the soul inside a physically challenged person to be incomplete; hence they want to make it completely incomplete by killing the person.
 If you have a different skin color than some other people, then you do not deserve to live. White men terminated millions of native  Americans because of this prejudice.

Being Judicious

Therefore, being judicious means understanding the science of the soul as presented reasonably and logically in the Bhagavad Gita. We can read, “One, who is truly knowledgable, understands the inner substance in different bodies, to be the same in nature. He thus sees with equal vision, a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste]. Only such a person can judiciously judge. Such a person is beyond prejudice, hence he can figure out things as they are rather than as he is forced observe.
Thus, the battle of Kuruksetra was a war between the judicious Pandavas and the prejudiced Kauravas. Sanjay, who was free from the conditional qualities of bias and bigotry, had the courage and guts to tell his master Dhrithrasthra  that there was no hope for his sons. He proved himself right at the end of the 18th day of the battle.
Are we ready to take the journey from being prejudiced to  judicious?  

I SEE INDRAPRASTHA

On the orders of Krishna, Maya Danav built the Indraprastha. Being more
than beautiful, it also had many deceptive things. In his passionate
curiousity, Duryodhana hurt himself twice – once physically and second
emotionally.

Life’s situations are like Indraprastha – unclear, uncertain and
unpredictable. We live as if we are living there; sometimes we are battered
physically and sometimes emotionally.

The Pandavas, especially Bhima and Draupadi had a good laugh at
Duryodhana’s predicament. He walked into a wall that appeared like a
curtain, hitting his head, and later fell into a pond of water that looked
to him like a transparent marble floor. Yudhishthira wanted to stop Bhima
and Draupadi from laughing casually about it but Krishna encouraged them to
laugh at Duryodhana.

This hurt Duryodhana more than just physically and he wanted to obliterate
the Pandavas. It is popularly believed that this incident proved to be an
important thrust in Duryodhana’s outburst, though he was scheming against
the Pandavas from the very beginning. Therefore, Bhima’s laughter at his
expense was no big deal.

When life’s situations are taken seriously without understanding its
virtual realities, we bump into mental pain, more than the physical.
Serious physical pain calls for sympathy. But when one suffers more mental
pain for little physical pain, he loses all sympathy. We see that in the
case of Duryodhana.

One, who takes the situations of life in a lighter mood, survives. One, who
takes it too seriously, abuses or neglects them, suffers more. That leads
to unending suffering.

Duryodhana had no reason to suffer. He had all means in abundance to enjoy.
But he made a conscious choice to be disturbed and distressed by the very
presence of the most presentable Pandavas, whose presence was enjoyed by
the sages and Lord Krishna Himself.

The illusions of Indraprastha were not one of the first experiences
Duryodhana had. It was, in fact, his habit to remain in illusion. He didn’t
need an Indraprastha. His life itself was an Indraprastha, where he saw
everyone to be laughing and jeering at him, and insulting him. This
encounter at Indraprastha was imply a detail.

This ‘Duryodhana’ syndrome is a very pervading and disturbing trend. And
sadly, it is created by the very family members who choose to pamper, more
than love, their offspring. Gandhari is a great lady but suffered by the
birth of Yudhishthira, the son of Kunti. She was the first to see
Indraprastha and feel immense pain. Dhritarashtra was born blind, so his
every heart beat saw Indraprastha and suffered immensely. With parents like
these, a don like Duryodhana was in order. And to top that, they left no
chance to shower him with untold affection, leading to the death of
millions of people.

We too will be posed with a choice. Do we want to use Indraprastha for the
cause of God and enjoy or suffer the predicament like Duryodhana, who saw
the Indraprastha everywhere, feeling insulted and ever increasing envy and
revenge?

EFFICIENCY OR AFFECTION

Management looks for efficiency hence it is focused on seeing the miniscule fault which has the potential to create great disaster.   For eg;- A Mechanical engineer if he makes one small mistake in manufacturing  an automobile-  it can cost many people their life.
In this scenario  the engineer will be judged by his efficieny not the  affectionate dealings he has with others.

Running this world has two principles:
Efficiency and Affection.
Only affection and no efficiency leads  to breaking up of the entire system.  Efficiency but no affection
For whose sake is one doing the management? And for whom will we manufacture all the sofisticated gadgets, if they fail to enhance our relationship.

Arjuna in the beginning of the Gita raised a very valid question to Krishna.   He said “My dear Lord what is use of all the wealth?
With whom do I enjoy?  All  the wealth will be tainted with the blood of our own realatives.”  Arjuna was referring to both sides. From his own side Abhimanyu, Ghatotkacha and others would be killed and  on the other side Bhisma, Drona and Duryodhana would be killed. He was ready to terminate the wrong doer for efficiency,but was unable to tolerate the  imminent separation from the loved ones.

Life demands us to balance  both, some times efficiency and at other times affection.
It can never agree with one principle,  When only one principle is practiced it creates Dharma glani.  

Why were the panadavas were exceptionally good?
They had the ability and courage to deal with both efficiency and affection
They also had the ability to  deal with challenges involved in both situations.

It is always easier to compromise with efficiency when our people are involved.
To establish the efficiency principle we are willing to throw away our relationship. But the biggest challenges are when our own people are involved and efficiecy has to be established.
People like Dhrithrasthra will certainly fail, because  he had unlimited affection but  was not working on the efficiency principle.
He lost  the facility to be affectionate towards his  sons because he did not the principle of efficient management with his sons.

On other hand when Tajmahal was built  it became  the seventh wonder of the world.  But at what cost?  Efficiency was there but where was the affection for those who worked to build it?
It did not invoke divinity but it invoked death of many....

Modern civilization has big, beautiful, and mind blowing monuments but it also has broken hearts, restless minds and contaminated intelligence.  Why?
Too much efficiency and very little affection.

MESSAGE IS IMPORTANT

In the Vedic Sanatana dharma, it is the message that isimportant and the messenger is important as long as he is valid and bona fide, representing the message purely and transmitting it transparently.

In the Abraham tradition, it is the messenger that is important and the message is subordinate to themessenger.

The Vedic tradition is cyclical, and therefore eternal. It has hundreds of messengers who are bona fide and transparent. The original message remains unchanged.  Of course, the application differs according to time, place and people.

The messenger centric culture has the disadvantage of imposing rather than inspiring, because it does not believe in the succession of messengers, who are the bearers of the message.

Vedas are eternal, just as the creation is eternal. Vedas are nothing but nature's law. These laws are not manufactured by the great seers, but are observed by them, by doing unlimited tapasya (austerity). Brahma is one such great deer , who heard the knowledge of the Vedas from Lord Hari and experienced it. Another one was Vyasadeva who compiled all this knowledge. There is nothing in this process except receiving the message and imparting it as it is to other human beings.

An Educational Centre is recognized as long as the educationalists keep imparting the knowledge without changing the conceptual understanding given by the founder of the  Educational Centre. In that sense, an educational centre  is the knowledge house. Brahma is the founder and the other teachers are representing the Vedic knowledge in the footsteps of Brahma and even experience just like lord Brahma .

Any sources of knowledge or laws manufactured by the humans are fraught with human imperfection.Therefore, man made message is artificial and does not stand the test of time.

Thus, knowledge is what is important!!! And the teachers are important as long as they represent that knowledge perfectly.

It is the Vedas that are important. Respecting the messenger who perfectly represents the Vedic message,signifies the worship of the Vedas.

Thus, choose the kind of knowledge and its messenger which are nature friendly and compassionate to all.

POPULAR OR PERFORMER

People choose leaders who are popular.These leaders may not necessarily perform well in regards to delivering what people need to live--- a wholesome life.

When the leader is worried about his next term position which is based on his becoming popular in this term he cannot deliver what is good for the citizen-- he can only promise what the citizen wants on the  physical plarform.
In the degraded age of modernity, people unfortunately want more of sensuality  and  less of a sense of duty.Modern world teaches us to ask for  rights, facilities and schemes.But the citizens have to fulfill their duties too.
The country where citizens look for facilities only, with no or minimal responsibility,  in such a country even if God becomes king  the citizens will throw  God out of power the next time, in  a democratic system.

The king or the head has to be very responsible and bring a sense of duty even amongst  his citizens.
This may make him unpopular amongst the lazy, and those who  live at the cost of the government take many free schemes and exhaust the treasury of the government.
Unfortunately the number of these kind if citizens will increase as time passes to  the next phase of modernity.

We will have teachers who have given up being responsible to students. ..
We will have people who have given up being responsible husbands,  wives, fathers or mothers.......
or good tax paying citizens.....
We will have citizens who are depending on tax payers money for their security......
We will have students who are taking loans but not paying off......
When the king is surrounded by such burdensome citizens he has no scope of winning through popular vote.

Therfore Mahabharata teaches us to become responsible, one of the most important duty of a  king is to be responsible and make his citizens as responsible as he is.Then with responsible citizens and a responsible king, there will be a legacy of coherent governance.

What do we want a tough king or a  rough life caused by too  many expectations? OR
A life without contribution of any thing to the over all growth of the nation?

It will be a nightmare to handle and deal with our own small problems in such a scenario what to speak of expecting  a complete change without ourselves  changing even a bit.

ACTION BUT NOT INTENTION

It has been observed that people  seldom give the benefit of doubt  to their opponent's intentions. We normally judge ourselves  based on our intentions, but judge others based  on their action. 

It is not easy to understand  another person’s intentions by his actions.  One may have some inkling but we cannot make conclusions with regards to other people’s intentions.

Mahabharata therefore gives  the over all guideliness in regards to this principle.

When Viswamitra was suffering from severe hunger and thirst and he was wandering looking for food he came  to a house  that belonged to a swapacha, a dog eater.The food that he was about to cosume  was the meat of a dog.

Viswamitra justifies his action, and  Svapacha questions his actions.  Dog eater says, “even at the cost of dying you should not engage in this horrible activity of eating  flesh.”  Viswamitra counter argues saying, “I know what I am doing, and why  I am doing.  My survival will benefit  me and  the society.”

Viswamtira muni convinces Svapacha about his intentions, and basically asks svapacha to not judge him by his action. It was not a normal day and his actions were caused by a severe draught in the area, where there was no water and food.  Survival became the question without consideration of how. In normal day to day to activities that very action would have caused condemnation of  Viswamitra, but this situation was different. The cause of  condemnation became the tool for living dharmik life and spread dharmik life.

Therefore Dharmik tradition in such situation calls for active debate and discusson so that no one justifies wrong things for good cause or good things for a bad cause.
Good cause has to be achieved through actions ---bad or good depending upon the need of the hour.

If good actions are not available then bad actions for a good cause.  Others will judge our intentions through our actions but  when we are really sincere and honest, we will try to balance both
Action and intention.