Acharya Prashant: Where Arjun was standing, Krishna could see that the right action for him was to fight.
Remember that it is already a battleground. Remember that Krishna himself has tried the utmost to avert war. He himself has gone as a messenger to the court of Duryodhana and tried his best. Now all that is behind. Now the armies are facing each other, and you must fight. That is the demand of the moment, that is the appropriate action of the moment. Krishna was not all the time advising Arjun to fight. Krishna was not saying to Arjun, “Arjun, under all situations it is your duty to fight.” At that moment, now, the right action is that you pick up your bow and arrow and?
Questioner: Fight.
Acharya Prashant: Fight. Two days before the war had there been a reconciliatory offer, Krishna would have accepted it. He had told the court that just five villages will be sufficient for the Pandavas. You keep the rest of the Kingdom. It is not as if fighting was always a duty. Because Krishna is not someone who would deal in duties. He deals in the right action for the moment. Before the war, the right action is—‘Please try to prevent war’. War means a lot of suffering. So, that was the right action. He was trying his best that war must not happen.
On the battlefield now you cannot act like a peacenik. Now you have to be an eagle, not a dove. Now you must fight. The days of talking peace are behind you. Now you must fight. So, what Krishna is talking about is not predestined, pre-scripted duty. He is talking about the right action at that moment. At that moment, it is not a duty. It is not a duty.
Questioner: So, Acharya Ji, in our life, whenever we have to face this dilemma of exercising peace or violence, what is the way to make the decision?
Acharya Prashant: There is no choice there. When it comes to peace, peace is not a choice. Peace is the only way. Peace is the only way . It is another matter that when you are driven by peace, and when you are going towards peace, often your actions may appear to be violent.
What do you think, was Krishna doing something that would be different from peace? Krishna is peace personified. But when you look at the sharp arrows of Arjun, the word ‘peace’ does not come to your mind, does it? When you look at the image of Krishna rushing towards Bhishma, to attack him personally, going beyond his brief as a charioteer, you don’t think that this is peace; you feel as if Krishna is being violent. The expression of peace often looks very much like violence.
Here is a hint for you—Truth, Peace, Love, Freedom, these must never be searched in actions. But because we do not have the subtle eye to really look at Truth or Freedom, we start acting as per the protocols of Truth and Freedom. Truth is an unsaid thing in the heart. You can speak in Truth; you can never speak the Truth. Love too is a silent music in the heart. You can act in love but love itself can never be the action.
But what have we done? We look at somebody’s actions and then we say, “Oh, what a loving action!” Now how do we manage to say that? By tallying that action with our image of a loving action. So, if you come over and offer chocolate to someone here, most people will say, “Oh, this is a loving action.” Two people are seen hugging each other. And what does it look like?
Questioner: Love.
Acharya Prashant: Love. One appears to be stating the facts, and that looks like? Truth.
You will never be able to find love in action. The action can originate from love. It must originate from love, but do not try to judge on the basis of action alone. Otherwise, you will totally misread everything. And that happens. And that’s also how we are duped.
Tell me, how do the shopkeepers know that teddy bears stand for love? They very well know that because you do not know real love, hence for you, the teddy bear is love. So, in the name of love, they sell you? Teddy bears. And you buy them. And when you gift a teddy bear to your girlfriend, for her this is an action of ?
Questioner: Love.
Acharya Prashant: Now, she is mistaken. And you too are mistaken. The shopkeeper too is mistaken. In fact, the teddy bear is also mistaken.
Questioner: Wasn’t the intent an act of love? I gifted a teddy bear. I didn’t know what love is or how I should express it, but my intent was an expression of love.
Acharya Prashant: No. Your intent was just to copy the social norms of loving action. Had you really been loving, why would you give her a teddy bear? She is 25 years old, what would she do with a teddy bear? There are ten other things that she needs more desperately than a teddy bear. Had you really been loving you would have gifted her with those things.
Here is a copy of AIEL (Advait in Everyday Life)—gift her that. But no, this would be seen as highly unromantic. Teddy bear is romance. Teddy bear is love.
Now, I have nothing against bears, but even the intention must be seen quite clearly. No, the intent is not of love. Had the intention been originating from love, then the intention could not have copied what ten others are doing. How is it so that everyone who is experiencing that upsurge of love gets a teddy bear? Leave the teddy bear with his own girlfriend. If you know love, then you would not bar somebody else from his love. Why are you giving it to your girlfriend?
Don’t you see that we just copy expressions of love? And that’s why those expressions vary so much across cultures. In some cultures, it is the cheeks; in other cultures, it is the lips. In other cultures, touching is a taboo. Even the intention—please see, I know it will be hurtful to see that—but please see, the intention is just to communicate to her that I love you as per the social expressions of love. Now, is love something social? Do you love in a crowd?
(Addressing the audience) But I really sympathize with you. Because if you don’t give a teddy bear, then you don’t know what might happen the next day. There are many others who are ready with their own teddy bears.
Full article link: https://acharyaprashant.org/en/articles/is-it-violence-when-krishna-is-asking-arjun-to-fight-1_ddeebcc