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.