Was Abhimanyu killed because he acted without consulting his superiors?
Was Abhimanyu’s death due to his entering the Chakravyuha without consulting anyone? Not at all.
Was it because he disobeyed the instructions of his superiors? Again, no.
The Mahabharata gives us a clear narrative. When Yudhishthira saw the Chakravyuha formation on the battlefield, he realized the gravity of the situation. After consulting with the other Pandavas, they concluded that if the formation wasn’t broken, their forces would be devastated. Arjuna, who knew how to both enter and exit the formation, was not present. Yudhishthira vaguely remembered that Arjuna had once mentioned that Abhimanyu knew how to enter the Chakravyuha.
When Yudhishthira called Abhimanyu, Abhimanyu clearly expressed his apprehension. He said, “I know how to enter the formation, but I don’t know how to come out.” At that point, Yudhishthira assured him that they would follow him in and break the formation from within. Bhima too reassured him similarly: “Just get us inside—we will destroy it.”
Encouraged by the support and requests of his respected elders, Abhimanyu set aside his apprehension and valiantly entered the formation.
So, to retroactively frame Abhimanyu’s death as an example of acting whimsically or disobeying instructions simply doesn’t fit the narrative. Reality is too complex to be reduced to simplistic frameworks. While frameworks can be helpful guides, they cannot capture the full scope of nuanced events.
Sometimes, even if we follow instructions diligently and act with pure intentions, we may still encounter failure. This is because the material world is unpredictable, and the Lord’s plan is beyond human comprehension.
Just because our desire is purely motivated—to serve the Lord or to serve our spiritual master—does not automatically mean that this is the role the Lord wants us to play. In the story of the descent of the Ganga, many generations of kings performed intense austerities to bring her to earth. Were those earlier kings impure or disobedient simply because they did not succeed? Certainly not. The eventual descent occurred through Bhagiratha, but that doesn’t diminish the sincerity or spiritual potency of those before him.
Similarly, we see that many magnificent temples in South India have survived. But that doesn’t mean equally grand temples weren’t built in North India—they were, but many were destroyed by invaders. Often, temples were completed over multiple generations. Were the earlier kings who didn’t see the temple’s completion less pure in motive? No.
Pure intention to serve Krishna or one’s spiritual master doesn’t always guarantee visible success. We need to recognize the inconceivability of Krishna’s plan, even when we are doing our best to follow instructions.
Even Srila Prabhupada, despite his extraordinary success, had projects that didn’t succeed materially. For example, he established the Dallas Gurukula, which later faced serious challenges. He also initiated a political party, In God We Trust, but eventually discontinued it upon realizing the extensive resources it would require.
Thus, strategic decisions also play a role. We must consider what is most effective in a given context.
The Bhagavad-gita acknowledges that even those who are wholly devoted to Krishna—“bhajante māṁ dṛḍha-vratāḥ” (9.14)—still must endeavor with great determination. Because in this material world, success may not come easily. It may require intense effort—or even multiple lifetimes.
Sometimes we may face repeated setbacks. But devotion means acknowledging the inconceivable plan of God while continuing to serve with humility and perseverance.
That is the true spirit of bhakti.