In fact, what was problem with Arjuna? When a reader, in first instance, reads the logics given by Arjuna, he sometimes gets the impression that Arjuna seems quite innocent and is a personality full of compassion. Arjuna felt that it would be foolishness on his part to kill his near and dear ones just because of materialistic gains. Rather he meant that instead of bloodshed, he should leave the world to renounce. He seemed unconvinced as to why should he fight for gains, which are not of permanent nature. The reader also gains sympathy for him, as Arjuna seems to be pious noble person caring for others. Was he wrong?
That is crux of problem. Now in fact, adoption of principle of non-violence is not bad. But adoption of same at wrong time and in contravention of one’s expected role is objectionable. Just see, Arjuna could have renounced his worldly life long back to become a saint and preach principles of spirituality including non-violence. But at the battle ground, he is leading Pandava's army in between these thoughts come to his mind. Just as if there are wars in two countries and in crucial moments army chiefs preach peace and non-violence completely forgetting their expected roles and forgetting that non-adherence of their warranted duties could damage the country - countrymen and generations to irreparable extent. So the role of army chief is to fight the war in a pre-decided and pre-planned way and not to be nervous.
Thus Arjuna was having such identity crisis. Arjuna was representing weak persons like us.
The lesson what I perceived long back in my mind is to remain aware of one's expected role and to play the role to the best of capability. It means when you are at home, you be mentally present there too - forget about worries of your office/business. When you are in office, not only your body should be there but your mind must also remain there. And with full sincerity and capability one should perform his duties in field of activity without any kind of moral pressures. There had been instances in history too when kings had to punish their own kith and kin's for their faults. Many times we are trapped in dharmasankatas Moh-janit strategy (under delusion) vs. Kartvaya-janit strategy (as per our expected role - duty wise). One must and must adhere to his duties only.
We again return to Arjuna. He was under delusion and due to pessimistic chain of thoughts he was trapped in negative thinking. He felt like leaving the battleground. Moral here is one must remain alert about chain of thoughts (vichar - pravah). And should ensure that his affirmations keep him morally elevated in high spirits and his mind is ABLE to take right decisions.
Again when we have more than one option at any point in our life too, we decide to adopt one way and now our mind is well-equipped to justify what action we propose to take. Naturally it is biased and based on the data/opinion provided by a mind under delusion (particularly if a pessimistic or contrary to expected role step is proposed). Arjuna also did the same. Lord could see through it. And here Lord is counseling him to remind him that he is warrior (kshatriya) and not a Brahmin or rishimuni. And if he (Arjuna) is justifying the stand taken by him, it is wrong justification under delusion and cowardice.
My cent. I shall be obliged to have your opinion of other learned persons too.
HARE KRISHNA..
