Arjuna's Dilemma🔗

1.25 to 1.30

In the presence of Bhishma, Drona a other rulers of the world,

Hrishikesa said, Partha, behold all the Kurus who are assembled here.

There Arjuna could see within the armies of both parties,

And friends, as well as his fathers-in-law and well-wishers

When Arjuna, the son of Kunti, saw all these friends and relatives present there,

He was overwhelmed with deep pity and said:

Krishna, seeing my friends and relatives present before me, eager to wage war,

I feel my limbs trembling, my mouth drying, and my hair standing on end.

My bow, Gandiva, slips from my hands, and my skin burns

I am unable to stand here any longer.

I am forgetting myself, and my mind reels.

I foresee only evil omens, O killer of the Kesi demon

Krishna parked the chariot between the two armies and said to Arjuna, ‘Here are the people you wished to see.’

There, in front of Arjuna are his friends and relatives. Krishna pulls no punches here. Arjuna wanted to see those who were about to fight him and die, and Krishna, with no mercy at all, showed him that these were Arjuna’s near and dear ones.

Krishna Himself was related to Arjuna. Kunti, Arjuna’s mother, also known as Pritha, was Krishna’s aunt, sister of Krishna’s father Vasudeva; so He addresses Arjuna here as Partha, the son of Pritha, emphasizing his relationship. Krishna is also referred to in the Gita as Parthasarathy, the charioteer of Partha, Arjuna.

Assembled in front of Arjuna were compatriots of his father Pandu, grandfathers and great grandfathers such as Bhishma, his own teachers such as Drona and Kripa, uncles such as Sakuni, brothers and cousins as all the Kaurava princes were, friends and well wishers. He knew every one of them. At one time or another, each of them had been an object of affection and respect to Arjuna. Now, they were part of this enemy army.

The theme of Gita is the story of Arjuna’s dilemma and its resolution by Krishna.

The expression of Arjuna’s dilemma starts here.

As a warrior, as a kshatriya, Arjuna was used to killing in battle. He was no stranger to death and violence. As long as his mind accepted the fact that those who faced him were his enemies and therefore deserved to be killed, Arjuna had no difficulty in carrying out the execution.

However, whom he saw in front of him now were not enemies as he had imagined, that his mind would expect, but instead people with whom he had shared common bonds over the years. These were people whom he had regarded with love and affection. They were his relatives, people who actually were or are like his father, grandfathers, uncles, brothers, sons and grandsons, tied to him with bonds of blood lineage. Many others were his friends with whom he had previously enjoyed bonds of loyalty and kinship.

Arjuna’s dilemma was not one of nonviolence, ahimsa. As a warrior, as a kshatriya, this word had no place in his dictionary. His dilemma was one of violence, violence born out of his ego, his identity. He could annihilate people he did not identify with, but he could not bear to kill those whom he could relate with himself in one way or another. The bond of family was far stronger than Arjuna had imagined. The bond of family that arose from him was rooted in his ego, and to cut this bond was to destroy himself. This was Arjuna's dilemma.

The Great War of Mahabharata was not merely about the fight between the hundred Kaurava princes and the five Pandava princes. It was not just about good and evil and the fight between the two. It was the war waged within the mind of Man, Nara, represented here by Arjuna, while coming to terms with what was perceived as good and what was perceived as evil.

What follows now is a litany of fantasies that Arjuna's mind weaves in an attempt to justify his dilemma. It is what the human mind conjures up time and again as its projection of the unconscious samskara, trying to justify its actions.

Sanjaya says that Arjuna was overwhelmed with pity. Some translate this as compassion.

Compassion, true compassion, which is the hallmark of an enlightened being, is non discriminatory; it does not differentiate. To the truly compassionate person, the whole world, of both living and nonliving beings, is an extension of his own self. Anything that hurts any object around such a person would hurt him, and he too would feel the pain.

However, the feeling that is referred to in these verses as the emotion that Arjuna experienced upon seeing his kinsmen was not of that noble kind. Arjuna's emotion was discriminatory. He felt pity for those who faced him, thinking that all of them would be killed. He felt pity only because they were his kinsmen, only because he identified with them.

As I mentioned earlier this was not compassion born out of ahimsa, nonviolence, but pity borne out of himsa, violence.

Arjuna's emotions arose from his ego.

True compassion arises from a state of absence of ego, from a state of no-mind and no-thought, where the feelings of 'I' and 'mine' have disappeared. True compassion is a state of bliss, one of true surrender to the Universe.

When the individual self merges with the universal Self, true compassion happens out of an awareness of the cosmic consciousness and awareness that one is part of that Brahman.

Arjuna's pity rose out of fear, fear of losing his identity, his ego. Arjuna was afraid, mortally afraid. He claimed that his throat was parched, his hair was standing on edge and his divine bow was slipping from his sweaty hands. If one did not know Arjuna better, one would have considered him a coward.

Arjuna was no coward. He had no fear for his own physical safety. He was not concerned that he might be

injured or that he might die. As a kshatriya of kshatriyas, these feelings were beneath him. But, Arjuna was afraid. He was afraid of breaking social and ethical laws. His values and beliefs, his subconscious memories, his samskaras, told him that what he was doing was wrong and unacceptable. So powerful was this feeling that he was reeling, quivering, dazed and unable to think or function.

Can something like this really happen? Can a hero lose his composure and exhibit the identical physical symptoms of a frightened coward? A true hero to whom death is play, who is trained from childhood by the greatest of masters not only in the control of his body but of his mind as well?

Arjuna’s situation shows how the mind can play games with the best of us, how the samskaras can take over the mind in so powerful a manner without his being even aware of it.

Arjuna was frightened that he would be held responsible for the death of his kinsmen, people who were father, grandfather and other such important figures to him. He was afraid that even if others did not blame him, he would suffer the guilt and regret for his action for the rest of his life.

So great was this fear of potential guilt, that it drove Arjuna into behaving like a coward. All he could foresee was disaster and evil; disaster to him and his clan; disaster to his reputation, and material destruction all around him.

At another, far deeper level, Arjuna was terrified of his own destruction. The moment one starts identifying with kinsmen, family, friends and relatives, it is a material identification. It is an identification born out of possession. This identification arises from one’s ego, from the feeling of ‘I’ and ‘mine’.

Possession leads from attachment, and leads to attachment as well. There can be no feeling of possessing something unless one is attached to it.

People speak of attachment, liking and love. All these are born out of and valid only as long as possession results. The moment the person wanting to be liked turns around and displays independence and unwillingness to be possessed, the liking and the love disappear.

Possession arises out of our survival need, from our muladhara chakra – an energy center located at the base of the spine. It is a primal feeling that yokes us to Mother Earth. Out of the need for possession, feelings of lust, greed and anger arise. Often what one cannot possess, one wants to destroy.

‘What I cannot have, let no one have,’ we often feel.

Possession leads to violence.

It is also the deep-rooted feeling of possessions giving rise to the feeling of ‘mine’ that gives rise to your identity ‘I’. Please understand that the need to possess does not stem from your identity. It is the other way around. ‘Mine’ leads to ‘I’, not ‘I’ to ‘mine’. This is why you cannot eliminate your identity till you renounce your attachment to all your desires and possessions.

Arjuna is in this mood and frame of mind. It strikes him at this eleventh hour, at the moment of waging war, that what he is about to destroy are his own possessions. These are his own kinsmen and part of his own identity. If he were to destroy them he will be destroying a part of his own self. By destroying those who are akin to his father, grandfather, son, brother, uncle and friend, he is effectively destroying his own mind-body system.

It is true that when someone dear to us dies, a part of our mind-body system dies with them. Arjuna was aware of this. He knew that the destruction of so many of his near and dear, his kinsmen, would take a massive toll on him. It would be akin to committing suicide.

Arjuna’s dilemma was an existential one. What is the point of eliminating others, if it results in one’s own elimination? It is a dilemma born out of partial understanding, a peek into the truth of collective consciousness. If Arjuna were to be as unaware as Duryodhana, this doubt would have never entered his mind. Were he enlightened as Krishna was, the answer would have been obvious. Arjuna was in between, hence his dilemma.

Why should I destroy myself? What for? These are the questions that naturally follow this line of reasoning. Arjuna was far wiser than many modern philosophers in posing this as a doubt, without venturing any answers.

Many philosophers, existentialists and nihilists, have concluded that there is no meaning to life when they encountered similar doubts. Since they did not have the humility of Arjuna, or the guidance of a Krishna, they provided their own answers created out of logical reasoning. Their reasoning had no experiential backing. Hence, they were wrong.

Arjuna is undergoing a process of transformation. He started off in this war with the basic assumptions of the kshatriya codes of conduct. When challenged, a kshatriya must fight; that is his code of honor, as with the samurai. Arjuna had no compunctions in doing this as he was brought up in this belief system.

However, the problem was that Arjuna was a thinking man. Unlike Duryodhana, or his own brother Bhima, he was not a thoughtless man. This ability to think, to be aware, was what had got him into trouble now. Doubts assailed him. 'Am I really doing right? Am I not destroying myself and all that I stand for when I wage this war against my own people?'

Arjuna had become a seeker of the Truth. He was no longer satisfied with what he had imbibed all these years

The transformation that Krishna leads him through over the eighteen chapters is the revelation of truth to Arjuna, and to all humanity.

Krishna is referred to by many names thus far. Some of them and their meanings are included here.

The word Krishna itself refers to His dark blue color, the color of the sky, and as infinite as the sky. It also means existence and bliss, sat chit ananda and ‘who provides salvation to those who surrender to Him.’

Kesava, the name by which he is called in the above verses, refers to the fact that He destroyed the demon Kesin. It also refers to his beautiful hair. The embodiment in Him of the Holy Trinity in the Hindu tradition, the Sanskrit words K referring to Brahma, A to Vishnu and Isa to Shiva is another one of His titles.

Govinda, is a combination of go referring to all living beings and vinda which means knower, Krishna being the ultimate knower of the mind, body and being of all living creatures.

Q: Master, You explained that Duryodhana acted out of blindness and Arjuna from partial awareness. Yet, if Arjuna were to enter the fight and kill his kinsmen, there would be no difference between him and Duryodhana. You yourself pointed out that rights and wrongs are merely our

conditioning. Then in what manner is Arjuna better than Duryodhana?

Here is an excellent question. It is correct that Duryodhana was like a blind man and therefore rights and wrongs had no meaning to him. He is at one end of a spectrum in his total unawareness. He is in the same state as an enlightened being in not distinguishing between right and wrong. But, here the similarity ends.

Arjuna, on the other hand, is an average human being, conditioned to accept the reality of right and wrong as taught to him by society. Moreover, he has deep faith in the code of the kshatriya, which places him under the compulsion of fair play, justice and so on.

We differentiate between two individuals based on our own conditioning and judgment. Each individual is unique. No human being and no being, living or inanimate can be evil. Existence, which is compassion incarnate, cannot produce something that is out of its character.

When we are born and as young children, we are able to see people without differentiation. If you watch a very young child, that child will go towards anyone, whether that person is holding a gun or a candy. It is immaterial to that child, as the child operates from curiosity. The child makes no judgment.

However, as the child grows up, it is ‘educated’; educated by its elders that certain things are right and certain things are wrong, safe or dangerous. The child may be taught that people who come from a background similar to its own parents are good people, and people who come from a dissimilar background are bad people. A child does not differentiate; an adult differentiates and excludes.

Good and bad, right and wrong, likes and dislikes, love and hatred arise out of differentiation. All these are adult qualities. All these are qualities that each generation imbibes from another with the assumed notion that it helps that generation and culture be safe.

Yet, crime records show people known to the victim commit the vast majority of rapes, murders and other violent crimes. That is why the first suspect in the murder of a spouse is always the other spouse. This is reality. Strangers are much less likely to harm you. Your own people do. Yet xenophobia, fear of strangers, is built into the human psyche.

Part of this xenophobia arises from our animal roots and tribal roots. Animals and tribes exist by grouping together for survival. Their very survival, the survival of the fittest, depends on how well they resist intruders. Ironically, this behavior has been shown to be scientifically dangerous to the long-term survival of any race. Inbreeding degenerates the chances of survival. It does not enhance it.

In this day and age, where the entire globe is a village, no man can live as an island. No group or race or country can isolate itself from others and expect to survive and thrive. We have to learn to live with one another. Co-operation and co-dependence are the factors best suited for survival and growth in this age, not violent competition and conflicts.

Studies at the cellular level have shown that cells like to link to other cells; they do not isolate themselves. Nature's way of evolution was not by competition and survival of the fittest, but by coming together and sharing. Darwin was wrong in that part of his theory that states that a species survives through conflict and elimination..

Whatever we apply as differentiated standards to those who you do not know, we also apply to those whom we know. We develop a common standard based on our experience and those who abide by it are good and those who do not are bad. This is developing a base of the lowest common denominator. Anything that is developed as averages or lowest common denominators will contribute to degeneration and not enhancement.

If you keep your head in boiling water and your feet on ice, your average temperature may be near the normal temperature for a human being; but then you won't be alive for long. We have been taught to think in terms of averages in everything. The average family size is 4.2. Does this make any sense in real terms? No!

Our unconscious is packed with emotion-filled memories, samskaras, which drive our decisions and actions and cause us to create separation and isolation. We would be shocked to know that there is no rationality to these decisions. Neither our senses nor our mind are dependable. Their judgments are questionable.

You may say, 'That is all what we have. What else can we use?'

That is not all that we have. At the highest level of expression, we are pure Intelligence. Intuition is available to us at every moment but we have not been taught this and so we never draw upon this innate Intelligence. We choose to rely upon our senses and our mind. The pleasures that our senses seem to provide us from the external world are our sustenance and we are so addicted to this that we do not turn our attention inwards. We don't know how, so much so that the prospect of just sitting with ourselves is actually frightening!

Your fundamental nature is one of awareness and intelligence. That is your core, your very center. But your mind is attracted through your senses towards peripheral pleasures, which are transient. From time to time, you realize that the periphery is not your real home and you move towards the center. The periphery attracts you again. So, you oscillate. You are never at the center for long.

You become eccentric!

Duryodhana operates near the periphery, coming very rarely towards his center. He is controlled by his senses and his mind. He has no control over them. Arjuna, on the other hand, tries to move to the center as much as he can. He tries to control his mind and his senses. This is the difference between the two. Who is better and who is worse? Who can pass any judgment?

If you were to ask for my advice, of course I shall say, be like Arjuna. Arjuna is a seeker. He is a disciple and he is working to drop his ego. But until he reaches the center, there is no fundamental difference between him and Duryodhana.

Like Arjuna and Duryodhana, every one of you is the same distance from enlightenment. Do not make yourself proud by thinking that you are at a better spiritual vantage point than any one else. Attending a few discourses, reading many books and even understanding some of them intellectually is not the experience of enlightenment itself. Both of these warriors are in darkness, but just to different degrees, that's all. It is the same with all of you. The person who hasn't met me or spent any time in spiritual pursuits is just as qualified as you are.

Such a person has an equal chance of being enlightened. Existence does not differentiate between saints and sinners as we classify them. Existence does not care. When you turn your attention inward and you are at the center of your being, you become Existence; you become enlightened. I always say that enlightenment is your natural state; it is not something that you need to work towards. You just have to be, that is all.

You may be Duryodhana or Arjuna. It makes no difference!

I have said time and again: I needed to experiment with ten thousand keys before I could find the right key to open the door to the truth. I now offer you that key so that you do not need to struggle.

It does make some difference in the path when you are an Arjuna. Not because you are closer to the center instead of the periphery, but because you are guided by a master. The redeeming factor for Arjuna was that Krishna was his master. Nothing else. It is Arjuna's surrender to Krishna that makes the difference. Nothing else.

Do not try to judge Arjuna and Duryodhana. There is nothing to differentiate and judge. But, act like Arjuna, if you can. Become a seeker. Seek a master. Your path will be easier. You can learn from life or you can learn from the master. With the master it is faster, easier and more compassionate for you.