Almost all of us feel that we are quite emotional. In the sense that whenever there is a crisis in the life of somebody close to us, we feel the pain. A friend falls sick; we feel worried. A relative meets with an accident, and we feel like rushing to help him. A close friend goes through a relationship crisis, and we feel like helping him. We feel like sharing moments of joy, and we also feel like sharing the pain. That's what we understand about being emotional.
Krishna knew Abhimanyu would die the day Dronacharya formed the Chakravyuha. Still, when Arjuna asked him to take his chariot away from the battlefield to fight Susarma, he did not warn Arjuna. Krishna did not stop the Kurukshetra war. Rama did not come back on the emotional appeal of Bharata and Mata Kaushalya. Why? In fact, why does the almighty and compassionate God allow all these things to happen? Why do human beings suffer so many traumas? Why did God allow Hitler to kill so many people? Why do so many murders take place on Earth? Why do so many bacteria and viruses take away the lives of so many people on this Earth? Is God not emotional? Is He a stone?
When a mother sees her daughter's potential to become a boxer, she makes her join the institute. The daughter goes through pain every day. Sometimes she gets badly hit, too. Every day, she works hard for hours. Is the mother not emotional? If she is emotional, how can she ignore her daughter's pain and despite the pain, how can she motivate her to go to the institute? Because she wants her daughter to realise her potential. When Dashratha sent Ram and Lakshman to the forest with Viswamitra, it wasn't because he wasn't emotional, but because he knew it was for his sons' growth. When an army trainer makes soldiers follow a tough schedule, he knows it's necessary. It makes them stronger, improves their stamina, and increases their chances of surviving tough war conditions.
Being emotional does not, therefore, mean providing every comfort for the people we love; rather, it means keeping their growth as human beings and their realisation of their fullest potential at the centre of decision-making. That's what Krishna did. Krishna wanted the Pandavas to fight their own battle. Would a wealthy father who really loves his kids want to make them dependent on the wealth he has accumulated, or enable them to make their own mark? It's a very subtle difference. When someone wants to accumulate wealth for future generations, can we see two subtle thoughts? First, the desire to be a provider, a person who will be known by the generations to come as a giver. A strong desire to earn the medal of being a great person. Second, a complete lack of sensitivity toward children and future generations. They may not realise their true potential at all because they don't need to work hard.
On the other hand, not so that an aware person will deprive his children of all the wealth, but so that he will enable them to realise the fullest potential of their lives. When love is at the root of a relationship, the other person's growth, well-being, and self-realisation are at the centre of decisions. In that process, the other person may have to suffer or undergo physical pain or stress. But generally, we use relationships as a tool in the name of relationships. Unless we are aware of our true existence, have the courage to be alone, and have realised the futility of all comforts, targets, and achievements, we will remain dependent on external validation and continue to use relationships as a tool for that validation. We stand by a friend in bad times with an expectation of reciprocation. We do a lot of hard work to make our children Civil Servants because somehow that gives us an inflated self-image of being a father of an IAS. A son's marriage helps the father show off his status. We want society's medal for being a family man. It's not easy to see ourselves unless we look ourselves with naked eyes, taking off the glasses of ego. Otherwise, we keep playing the game of ego in the name of emotionality.
Comments