When I wrote "the call" I did not mean call in the strictest spiritual sense. Ofcourse it is well understood in the case of the spiritual call- nobody would argue against it - that "..one should go entirely by it". Your injunctions to all the "shoulds' are certainly in keeping with the highest teaching. But here too it might be pointed out that man is not one homogenous being and a graded and gradual development that often includes Goethe's "I see and approve better things, but follow worse" is to be clearly recognized. It can often be a long and arduous preparation before the Divine becomes the highest priority and the sole reason for our existence and reflected as such in the choices that we make each moment. In the case of the inner spiritual call your "If it is a call for a professional undertaking, for instance of a true historian, then stick to it in the strictest sense, fastened to it without being concerned with anything else, irrespective of the apparent consequences." might not be applicable to every situation. What if the historian(I am not referring to this particular case) face to face with documents that are extremely critical of his Guru chooses to refrain from the undertaking of a biography instead of allowing his work to be the window to such aspects of his Guru? The conflict here is evident. The historian subservient to the disciple is consonant with the inner life and the inner call. However that is not the only "call" I am referring to. I am including in its purview the various conceptions and truths that the different parts of our being are called to, and which are often in conflict with each other. In the example of the lawyer , the conscience of the lawyer overrides the truth of the practice of law even if that practice be his swadharma. It is to the higher in us that the the Gita calls.