Verses 1.36–1.39🔗

Here is Arjuna’s dilemma spoken plainly. He had two options and is looking to be convinced of one or the other. The first was that going to battle was wrong, especially against his kinsmen. Therefore he should cease and resist, walk away from the war before it starts. All his arguments up to this point were in this line of thinking. At the same time, Arjuna was open to the possibility that what he had set out to do was indeed correct, in which case he would go back into battle mode, as a true kṣatriya would do. To begin with had Arjuna been totally convinced that war against his kinsmen was wrong, he would not have come to the battlefield.

It was his lack of integrity that raised within him the question of retreat from his duty. To Arjuna’s credit, he listened to himself, to what his mind had to say and turned to the Master for guidance. He allowed Kṛṣṇa to speak into his listening. Understand, the whole spiritual life starts with authentic listening. Arjuna’s mind now brings up one more argument. Arjuna agreed that Duryodhana and his allies were the aggressors and wrongdoers. Whatever they had done to him, his brothers and his wife was not pardonable, and they needed to be punished by the laws of the land. By all rights Arjuna was quite justified in killing those wrongdoers.

‘But,’ Arjuna asked, ‘Would one wrong be corrected by another wrong? How can I be happy killing my kinsmen, however justified I might be in doing that? Their misdeeds cannot be remedied by my misdeed and that would only make me miserable.’ Arjuna’s Violence Erupts There are two incompletions central to Arjuna’s dilemma. The first incompletion is that of relationship. The problem that Arjuna faced is one that we all face when asked to do unpleasant things to people we know. It is always easier to criticize and punish people one does not know. To be faceless is to be fearless. With people one knows, there is a danger of breaking the relationship through perceived negative behavior, even when it may be fully justified.

To face this incompletion in one’s relationships, one must first develop detachment that allows action without worrying about the consequences. This detachment only comes from completion with every relationship with oneself and with others in one’s life. One follows the path of completion and leaves the result to the process. As long as the path is right, whatever destination the path takes one to, will also be right. Listen. Vedic civilization is established on completion. You realize your potentiality, you establish yourself in the space of completion, you are God! Understand, only if we start living completion, we will understand the quality of life. I tell you, when there is incompletion, your life is stolen away from you.

Let me define Completion. Completion is removing the delusion of incompletion, which makes you cognize that the other is separate from you. Understand, incompletion has no existence; it is only a delusive cognition. Incompletion is the delusive cognition that stands between you and the Whole. Complete with everything. To overcome this isolation, this incompletion we need to realize that no man is an island. We are all connected at the spiritual level. When we complete with everything, animate and inanimate, we will experience the space of non-duality, advaita, where there is no one, no two but infinite, everything is infinitely powerful. See, relationships are nothing but our own extensions. Relationships are not outside; they are just our own extensions.

The ‘you’ extended outside you is our relationships. Completing with all our extensions,we will learn to complete the incomplete ‘you,’ if present in other. When we arrive on planet Earth, we are complete, integrated beings. We are open to all possibilities. Over time, we build walls believing that these walls will keep us safe and that the connections that we have established inside the walls are ours to keep. We create a delusory cognition that we possess everything within the wall. Slowly, the open space we started with becomes a maze and we are lost inside! The islands need to be bridged. We need to complete with everyone, with everything instead of isolating them and competing.

Competition does not ensure survival; completion does. Understand, with competition you may have survival success, but you will never expand. Success in crisis moments is only survival success, not life success. Success in life happens only with completion. The other incompletion that Arjuna faces is the problem of directness of action. In a war of this type, Arjuna faced transparent consequences of his action. If he shot an arrow and killed a kinsman, death was a direct result of his action. Arjuna did not have the luxury of remote destruction. He had to look the victim in the eye before releasing his arrow. He was aware of whom he was killing and why.

He felt the destruction within himself when he killed someone else. Please listen! Life is continuously happening in front of us. Arjuna is frightened in front of the eyes of life; from his disowned self, his relationships which are his forgotten extensions. This anxiety, fear, shivering is nothing but the expression of the incompletions Arjuna was carrying. Arjuna was affected by the combination of these two delusory incompletions: that of being connected by kinship to his enemies and the fact that he had to kill them directly and personally. It affected him because he was not a Duryodhana, who was in self-denial about the consequences of his actions. It affected Arjuna because he was not a Kṛṣṇa who would have taken responsibility for his and everyone’s good or bad actions, being in the powerful space of completion at all times.

Arjuna was neither Kṛṣṇa nor Duryodhana. His mind was doubting that he might be doing wrong, but his mind had not yet ascended to be able to complete with his kinship bonds. This was Arjuna’s dilemma. This was Arjuna’s incompletion. Earlier Arjuna said that even if his kinsmen had made big mistakes, he should not repeat the same mistakes; even if offered the entire Universe. He said that his kinsmen blinded by greed for power, were in darkness that saw nothing wrong in destroying one another and their own kinsmen. He asked Kṛṣṇa, ‘Shouldn’t we be distancing ourselves from these people and their attitudes, we who are not ignorant, not in darkness and not blinded?’

Now, he condemned the same kinsmen, his svajanam that he had referred to so passionately a few moments earlier; the same people who he claimed to hold in great respect and affection and therefore did not wish to kill. He shifted gears now and moved from the position of not killing them because they were his flesh and blood to a greater moral position of not wishing to kill them because it was morally reprehensible. Arjuna said that destruction of the lineage, the dynasty, is evil, and that he recoiled from such a deed even though his opponents had no such compunction, blinded as they were by greed. Arjuna’s dilemma now jumps to a larger arena.

It was now a matter of tradition and respect for the lineage that could be traced back to the moon and divine beings, and an old, established tradition that would be a sin to dismantle and destroy. It’s no longer about individuals; it is about the destruction of a race that had existed for thousands of years. How could he be expected to carry out such a horrible act, he pleaded. In Arjuna’s mind this was a big self-doubt. Killing a few individuals, even if kinsmen, was a mistake. Killing a whole generation was a far bigger sin, and now he was expected to destroy a whole race, the foundations of a proud and legendary dynasty.

How could the future generations forgive him? This was how the argument of Arjuna’s dilemma shifted. His incompletions led to greater delusory incompletions, from individual to racial destruction. When Arjuna talks about the threat to his dynasty, it arises out of a fear of his own mortality. He has asked, ‘Even if I am to die, as I must, should I not ensure the continuance of my dynasty that bears my signature, my identity, my DNA?’ Arjuna is pleading with Kṛṣṇa, ‘Please tell me, am I right? Please tell me, should I withdraw from this battle?’ Arjuna is now violently asking for a single instruction to escape the fear of losing his identity on which his mamakāra, inner image is built.

Understand, Arjuna’s identity is based on his kṣatriya up-bringing, the mentality of a warrior. Asking for one single instruction comes from his mentality of fighting, of violence that always excludes. In a fight who is the winner? Only one. In survival instinct, who is the winner? Only one. As we will see, Kṛṣṇa never gives him a single instruction but gives him inspiration. He gives him the whole inspiration based science of Gītā śāstra, so he can find his own answers and he raises himself by himself!