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. 

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.