ADVICE OR DEMISE

When Yudhisthira performed the Rajasuya Sacrifice, an incident  occured which in one sense was a turning point for the Kuru family.

Lord Krishna chopped off the head of the notorious babbler Sisupala. This incident sent chills in Yudhisthira's spine as Sisupala was his maternal cousin, his mother’s sister’s son.
He asked Vyasadeva the out come of this incident, what the future held for him?.  Vyasadeva said “ this is the indication of the future destruction of all your adharmik relatives  and you will be used as an instrument by the son of Devaki, Krishna,  to remove the burden on earth. " Yudhisthira was flabbergasted, he wanted no role in the destruction of any one, what to speak of a host of families.
So he took a vow of obeying his elders and this very vow which he uttered changed the direction of his destiny.  Using this vow Dhrithrasthra called Yudhisthira to gamble knowing that Yudhisthira would not disobey his elders and come for the gambling match ..
eventually this match was the cause for the seed of future  destruction of the kuru kula and other adharmik forces.

When Vidura was sent to invite Yudhisthra, he advised Dhrithrasthra  to not  invite his death, since gambling is the ruination of everything and gambling also has the potential for future dangerous consequences.The advice was however unheeded by the blind and attached Dhrithrasthra.
He was seeing the bright future of his son in this gambling match, without considering the reaction and punishment  that he would have to incur. So he asked Vidura to bring the Pandavas for the duel of death, in the form of a gambling match.

Vidura invited Yudhishthira. Yudhisthira came to Hastinapura to gamble, knowing very well the ill effects of gambling.
He was forced by a power beyond him -- he was called by his remote aspect the personification of  death, as he was the yamaraja incarnate.  He was going  there as an instrument on behalf of God .

Destiny was beseeching  the Kauravas to refrain from adharma, in the form of the other aspect of destiny or time factor or Yamaraja in the form of Vidura, who was giving them solid advice,.
However they did not heed  this advice. So Vidura invited the death or demise  or Yama aspect of his personality, Yudhisthira  for the gambling match.

In between the advice and the demise, is our independence, we have to make a choice,  to make the advice fruitful or eat our own bitter fruit in the form of ugly death and punishment.

Duryodhana and party discarded the advice aspect of  Yama  in the form of Vidura, and with that they discarded their glory and power to the abode of death.  Pandavas simply remained an active instrument in the hands of God and Kala. Either as the  advising kala or the destructive  kala, depending upon whatever one wanted-- Advice or Demise

MILK POISON OR NECTAR?

Giving satisfaction by falsity is part of a deceptive life. Deceptiveness could be caused by helplessness or habit.
Shakuni wanted to give happiness to Duryodhana by deception caused by habit. He was hell bent to make Duryodhana the king, so he conditioned himself to be a cheat. And Duryodhana did not resist.
Dronacharya was giving satisfaction to his only son Ashwathama by deceiving him, this was out of helplessness.  Poverty led him to give water mixed with rice flour, as milk to his son. Ashwathama  drank it, thinking  it was real milk, till he drank the  real milk. After tasting real  milk he gave up all desire for the watery  rice flour.
In this scenario Drona  went to seek help from his school friend Drupada.
Drupada, now a king, rejected Drona’s friendship because Drona  did not have an equal social status of being a king -- however he  was willing to provide the  milk for Ashwatthama by donating a few cows. But Drona’s need had changed, now he no longer wanted  milk for his son, rather he wanted a bloody revenge since Drupada had insulted him.
He started looking for some one who could help him avenge his insult.  He found the great kuru kumaras, especially the Pandavas, one of them,  Arjuna, who fulfilled his desire.   Arjuna, bound Drupada and put him at the feet of the fiery Drona who in turn was pleased to see Drupada in this bound condition.  Now Drupada was humiliated and he wanted to take revenge by siring a son who  could kill Drona, and sure enough he got what  he wanted.  He sired Drishtadhyumna as his son, who eventually killed Drona but Drishtadhyumna himself lost his life  fighting against Ashwathama.
The Pandavas were fighting as they were bound by duty of dharma for  assisting Lord Krishna to establish Dharma , unlike Drona and Shakuni who were fighting out of habit or helplessness to satisfy their senses .
Dharma,  it directs  us to uplift our consciousness by connecting with divinity by devotion, dedication and devoted to the teachings of evolved persons.

Unfortunately, the habitual Shakuni and the  helpless and revengeful Drona were brought together by their desires and destiny to fight against the dharmik Pandavas .
The habitual and the helpless Shakuni and Drona were both vanquished  by the Pandavas who were helping Lord Krishna.
Dharma directs us not to be adharmik either for habitual reason or out of helplessness.

AFFECTION DIVIDED?

When Arjuna married Subhadra, the sister of Lord Krishna, he was hesitant on introducing her to Draupadi as he feared that Draupadi would feel cheated to see that Arjuna’s love would be divided. Krishna, thus advised Subhadra to approach Draupadi as a cowherd girl and offer suitable respect. Being as innocent and pure as she was, Subhadra did exactly what was told to her and Draupadi completely melted. 

Kunti went through similar situations too. She grew up as a step daughter, married Pandu who brought another wife and raised 3 of her own children and 2 of Madri’s. She was a great mother because her mind space was vast and large. She never discriminated between them.

Conflicts do not arise when new people come into our lives, but from, how it is communicated. Some families raise their children with less physical resources but more mental abilities. Now the modern world has unlimited resources and people to deal with, but the art of dealing with less is also becoming more and more difficult.

Dharmik scriptures talk about growing with diversity rather than growing in university. University does teach us but doesn’t touch upon the diversity of life. Community is like a diverse universe, where one organically learns the art of cooperation.

Duryodhan knew how to invoke love and we know that from the fact that he had affection for his 99 brothers. But just 5 more members became the source of his ultimate nightmares. What was wrong in the Pandavas? Nothing other than the mindset of Duryodhan. He believed that they’re his enemies. Sure enough they did become his worst enemies and took his and everyone else’s lives. It was not the Pandavas but the Kauravas who themselves created their own destiny and the Pandavas simply served as an instrument.

What modern society needs is not lesser people but more space in the mind; only then is universal brotherhood possible. But unfortunately, there are more Kauravas and less Draupadis and Subhadras. As history has witnessed, today’s Duryodhan will force the Pandavas to take action. War-like situation will be a constant reality because Duryodhanism is an eternal reality.

We have a choice to be living with a spacious mind with less or more physical space or having more  physical spence and having little or no space in the mind.  And we must choose wisely.

‘Adhyatma vidya’ is the  space producing mechanism: space in the heart, mind and the very soul. Then we can say, ‘Vasudhiva Kutumbakam’ – the entire world is my family.

What a thought! What a concept

KRISHNA DHARMA

In this world clash of civilization, ideas, culture and also personal clash in choices are natural and unavoidable.
Clash is natural but not dealing with them is unnatural and adharmik.
One common belief that people in this world  have is that" time will heal everything."
Certainly time does heal. But time heals mental, physical, sensual wounds. Time has no power to heal ignorance. However long one waits  to move on, time does not have the power to heal the might of ignorance.
Ignorance has to be fought vigorously to dispel it. This battle against ignorance is a difficult one but not an impossible one.

In tines of clash or conflict  people  make choices which are easy in the  present and hope  that the clash or conflict will automatically disappear. 

Conflict was central in the life of many characters in the Mahabharata. Be it Bhisma, Drona, Dhirthrasthra, Karna, Gandhari, Duryodhana, Drupada, Virata, Dhristhyadyumna, Shikhandi, Ghatodgaja  or even for that matter in the life of the Pandavas.
So conflict existed and was experienced by all however the difference was in the way that each one  dealt with conflict.
The Pandavas resolved the conflict by fighting based on Krishna dharma whist the others chose personal dharma.

Some took shelter of adharma and some took shelter of superficial and ritualistic so called dharma  to avoid the action of fighting for the substance of dharma.

1.Bhisma fought for pitri and kula dharma (father and his family)
2.Drona and Dhrithrasthra fought for putra dharma(for the sake of son) 3.Karna fought for mitra dharma(sake of friend)
4.Shalya fought for rna dharma (obligation for receiving reception from kurus)
5.Drupada fought for his ksatriya dharma which was trampled by Drona.
6. Shikhandi fought for her nyaya dharma (justice)
Even Duryodhana had an agenda for fighting. He believed that his kula had done injustice to his father who  was the oldest in the family. Dhristharasthra had been  deprived of the throne because of his blindness. And hence Duryodhana thought that it was his rightful claim to be the king and  that the Pandavas  were intruders.
Some  people think that if  the Pandavas were really so nice and detached they should have averted the war by making Duryodhana the king and retired to the forest.
In fact Dhristhrasthra  had even suggested this idea to  the Pandavas through Sanjay.

The Pandavas were about to follow the above advise attempting to follow the personal  dharma of indifference, no violence and no throne to avoid the massacre.
But they chose to renounce all these above  personal dharmas which were followed by other personalities and chose to follow Krishna dharma .

Krishna dharma is universal good over personal dharma.
In following  and establishing krishna dharma the Pandavas had to eliminate  great heroes of the Kurus side  and sacrifice some  heroes from their side too.

So Krishna dharma entails  establishing religious principles whenever and wherever they are in imbalance, irrespective of the fact that the imbalance is caused by good people or bad people.
This is tough but can it be avoided?

ASSERTIVE OFFENSIVE OR DEFENSIVE

Life is like a boat rocking in turbulent waters, tilting in different directions according to the movement of water.  An expert boatman is one who knows how to row and maneouver it  diligently and protect the boat from drowning. We are forced to face life situations and whilst facing these situations we  use different strategies. People who use idealistic strategies face drowning like situations because of their fixed ideas. Practical people on the other hand use brutally realistic strategies .

It is very interesting to know  that Gandhiji referred to the Gita and Hitler too, but both had an opposite perspective.
Gandhiji took only the symbolic meaning of it. And Hitler imitated the story by brutally murdering innocent people. Gandhi wanted peace and Hitler wanted war. Gandhi's approach gave him fame whilst  Hitler's approach gave him infamy.

Gita  teaches peace and prepares us for war. Krishna whilst going as peace messenger on behalf of the Pandavas with their message of "give us five villages " said ,"we want peace but we are prepared for war". Duryodhana was given many practical options one of them was that he become the regent prince .

He was told that the combined force of the Kauravas and Pandavas would be invincible even for a demigod like Indra. Lord Krishna also spoke to him about the power of the Pandavas  especially Arjuna who had defeated the entire clan of  Kuru commanders. Parashurama also told the Kurus  of the power of the Pandavas, especially Arjuna who was none other than Nara and Krsna was Narayana.
Kanva Rishi told Duryodhana of the evil of pride.
Narada Muni instructed Duryodhan.  . Bhisma and Drona pleaded.
Krishna threatened ...
So many people tried ...
But it was like hitting the head against a rock wall.  In such a condition how could good advice work or which peace talk would make sense? What was needed at that juncture was violence of peace. In other words some strong punishment to establish a sensible king. Duryodhana was one who was proving his disqualification with his  "no cooperation attitude". It was his arrogant independence which lead to the Great War. The option of war was bad,  but without punishing Duryodhana there could have been a legacy of prolonged exploitation of the people  which Krishna had to stop. So war was certainly  the last resort .

To deal with Duryodhana's offensiveness, lord Krishna chose assertiveness, because defensiveness was abused and assaulted. Defensive party of the Pandavas had given many years to the offensive party to change but it had not benefitted any one. When the disease is not controllable by medicine the doctor gives a strong dose but if that does not work surgery is a must if that does not work too, then removal of the rotten organ  becomes imperative for the rest of the body to survive.
Duryodhana's party had become cancerous and was  spreading the disease all over so  it had to be removed so that the rest of the body of society survived..

So  the Gita is idealistic but reluctantly takes  the decision of practical violence. Once the decision is taken  it executes ruthlessly till the violent adharma is terminated.
Gita wants peace of Gandhi but is  ready for controlled violence of dharma unlike Hitler's brutality.

CONSUMERISM IS DEVOURING

Modern man is fascinated by consumerism.
He consumes  through his active senses:
Smells through his nostrils-
Hears  through his ears-
Touches through his sense of skin-
Sees through his eyes-
and of course the king of all consumption.... is food that he consumes through his mouth.
It is the age of variety, from food to foot wear--- man has choices by the millions.
After the Rajasuya Sacrifice, Duryodhana on seeing the prosperity of the Pandavas was dumbfounded stunned and stupefied. He described the prosperity and the opulence of the Pandavas to Dhritrashtra. Dhritharasthra who was himself tormented on being blind, tried to vainly tell him not to be disturbed.  Duryodhana said to his father “no one can grow if he is content.The only way to grow in life is to always be unfulfilled. Satisfaction is the enemy of growth.”
He was completely consumed by consumerism .
He wanted everything that others had. He was being devoured by his  desires which remained unfulfilled. These insatiable wants disturbed devoured and ultimately devastated him.

Some statistics say --if China and India follow the American way of consumerism, the earth planet would need  to grow 4 to 5 times more resources to accommodate the new life style of  consumerism.
Wants are unlimited but resoureces  to fulfill these wants are not only limited but are also depleting with rapid force.
What is the solution to this?
Our wants will not be fulfilled.
This is not the curse of a raging sage- but  the reality of a ravaged mother earth. Mother earth is reacting, she cannot handle the burden of  our wants, although  she can easily handle our needs for a responsible existence.

Therefore Dharma reminds us to be dharma sensitive,  use what you need, and deny  the wants of a turbulent mind.
When we lead a responsible life respecting mother earth  we can deal with the challenges of existence.

The Pandavas followed this principle and were prosperous.They fought for their rights and needs. Duryodhana on the other hand  died because he went way beyond  his needs and fought the war to fulfill his wants rather than his needs which in turn  caused great destruction on the battle field of Kurusketra .
Duryodhana’s wants devoured him--- and Yudhisthira’s needs directed him to follow the Dharma of a kshatriya and fight the war under the guidance of Krishna the lord of Dharma.

Our path is wide open either we can be devoured by our wants or be devoted to our needs and responsibilities. One path can  burden the earth whilst the  other can uplift all ---including mother earth.

WEALTH OR ATTITUDE

Vanavasa is synonymous to Ramayana and Mahabharata. In fact, both the epics illustrate how Vanavasa, meaning forest dwelling, was the turning point in the lives of the protagonists and the entire classic. With the ill advice of Manthara, Kaikeyi wanted to break Ayodhya, not physically but emotionally. To an extent she was successful but she was failed by her very son for whose sake she acted against the will of the entire kingdom. She learned her lessons quickly but Lord Rama was undeterred. He had a bigger mission to achieve. So He did not return to Ayodhya for the next 14 years. It was in the forest that He actually achieved many things. 

 

Unlike Ramayana, the Mahabharata has many twists and turns with regards to Pandavas going to forest. It was not only painful like Rama's vanavasa, but also very brutal.  They were disrobed of their honour more than their power. But pandavas demonstrated that if one really wants to grow then he could, with the experience of adversity, where he is forced to deal with challenges. Growth with inheritance from ancestors and growth with the experience of complete poverty are two very different phenomena. The comparison is not to determine which is better because that cannot be stated. But those who grow with nothing have great experiences to share. Pandavas had the prosperity of attitude (ATTITUDE OF PROSPERITY?), that was never taken away from them. 

 

Dharma calls for consistency in practice. Only those people are willing to take challenge to grow beyond the normal capacity. Normal people are flexible with regards to dharma; if it is profitable to follow dharma they’ll do it. But if adharma gives a larger profit, they are willing to sell even dharma for profit. For adharma, dharma is a tool. For Dharmik people, dharma is the destiny and journey. And only such Dharmik people are qualified to break the so-called disintegrated dharma to establish integrated dharma. 

 

For Pandavas, the Vanavasa experience became their abroad university learning. But this ‘abroad’ was not the organized, sophisticated and stable place; It was a forest with lots of uncertainty. But their skills of attitude were their constatnt companions to move from one place to another, learning more and more.

 

The Clash between the Pandavas and Kurus was that of wealth without prosperity of right attitude, versus wealth of right attitude. With the right attitude, wealth becomes a mere detail. And without the right attitude, wealth becomes the essence.  So what are we looking: wealth or attitude?

NIRBHAYA

The very name Nirbhaya caused great bhaya (fear) in the hearts of all Indians and even beyond. Everyone witnessed so much anger which was exhibited in the form of demonstrations and organized discussions to deal with this. Especially the women were most affected by this. When we deal with and discuss situations like this only from the present point of view, we may fail to find solutions which are wholesome.  Discussing any kind of problem without referring to the past and trying to implement the solution in the present will only result in repetition of history.  The solution of “Forgive and forget” could be the greatest tyranny for someone who has experienced the trauma. It may also result in repetition of the crime in future. This land or any other, where there’s human existence, has unfortunately seen oppression and exploitation of women and children. When we see our own Indian traditional books, we learn how such incidents are dealt with. There is action which is apt for punishing the culprit; and only on that platform is there any discussion on rectifying the life of the victim.      In the Ramayana, the incident of Sita’s kidnapping, has been narrated by Valmiki and Tulsidas in great detail.  It is very unfortunate to see how Surphanaka, in spite of being a woman herself, was instrumental in helping or provoking Ravana to kidnap Sita. She was so selfish that she could not understand the pain that Sita would have to go through on being forced by Ravana. Another woman, who was less powerful, but still stood by Sita’s side in time of Her need, in the very land where Ravana was very powerful, was the wife of Vibhisana. She was able to give emotional support to Sita, but of course, that was not sufficient.  The culprits had to be booked and punished. For the sin of forcing his so called love on Sita, who was not at all interested in him, Ravana had to lose everything, including his very life, in the hands of Rama who was the personification of justice.    In the Mahabharata, the incident of the attempt to disrobe Draupadi took place in the very land of the capital city of India, where laws are supposed to be made and implemented. It is very disturbing to know that many Indian authors who have written quite a few commentaries on the Mahabharata, consciously or unconsciously, blame Draupadi herself for the attempted disrobing. According to them, since she had insulted Karna, he took revenge against her, or they quote the incident when Duryodhana was laughed at when he fell in the water in the palace of illusion, since he was hurt so bad, he gave a fitting reply to her. Now, love and the choice of marriage are not based on whether some one feels insulted or not. Moreover, Draupadi was already married to someone else. To drag her to take revenge does not befit refined human intellect and specially those who are holding the reins of the government. The gory incident is described….how after the Pandavas lost everything, including Draupadi, Karna was the one who told Kauravas to bring Draupadi naked in front of everyone, because after all she is the woman for five 5 men, hence she was a prostitute. Of course, it was a fully baseless and illogical argument; Draupadi was a most chaste woman and not a prostitute. But, even legally or morally, it’s not human etiquette to drag even a prostitute (of course Draupadi is not one) in a public place to be exposed naked. It’s inhuman even of those who may not have refined civilization. Calling for such an act by Karna and being ordered to be executed by Duryodhana is a horrific and gruesome crime to the entire womanhood.  Now what’s most important is how it was dealt with……by the very personification of justice, in the form Krishna. What followed was the destruction of the Kuru dynasty, including Bhishma and Drona.  Even though both of them were not party to it, but they were neutral, . On the other hand, someone like Jatayu, who is subhuman, had the decent intelligence to fight for Sita rather than seeing this atrocity. It’s so strange that those who are categorized as subhuman show much refined sentiments and the so called refined human beings lose all emotion and became like dry wood or block of ice. They were sitting like ostrich birds, as if nothing was happening. Basically, the war was not between two groups of brothers, that was just a superficial reason, actually it was a fight for justice for Draupadi’s public humiliation.Only when we punish the culprit and those who have assisted in the crime, then can we talk about counseling the victim to go on in life with positive attitude. It is impossible to forgive unless the crime is taken care of. Forgive and Forget will only make the offenders perform more crime on the oppressed and helpless.Health cannot be gained while sheltering the deadly bacteria. Deadly bacteria are there to kill and disintegrate our body, in such a condition no good wishes and prayers will work, though we  need them too. Most importantly, to get health back, one has to uproot, by all means, all the foreign elements in the body, and that really causes great exhaustion, like in malaria medicine, the medicines are quite exhausting, but only on that platform, the re-gaining of sound body and mind begins.  So it is this lesson, Mahabharata and Ramayana teach us.  Nirbhaya, means fearlessness.  It can only come by dealing it, in a practical way.

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?