let's discuss the biggest epic ever: MAHABHARAT - Page 4

Posted: 9 years ago
One note about duryodhan.
He was incredibly self centered. He wanted to be the king and not bothered if any one from kaurava side was king.

IN their generation, yudi was the eldest. but in next gen, Laxman Kumar , duryodhan's son was. If he  would have let yudi rule, in next gen , knowing how yudi is a stickler for what is right, laxman would have been made hair apparant.
But he did not bother, even after the exile.
Result, laxman killed by abhi before his own  death.
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by enigmatic_zephy


Also,
isn't the point of talking and justifying krishna's or pandavas acts pointless.. if it was decided from the very beginning that this war must happen...and they would win it?
Then, is it not right to deduce that circumstances were conditioned at each stage to lead up to the war...

starting with ganga killing her first born

Nope there is no justification for anything. More like learning that even someone who is referred as God- Krishna went through his cycle of punishment, remorse and grief. But the thing is Pandavas and Krishna tried stopping the pointless war many times, they were not asking for the crown or the throne . They were ready to part with it . So there defense was more of retaliation to Duryodhana  and kaurava's intent to kill. How could nature's balance of justice ever letthat happen. Like Geeta says Karma - everyone got what they deserved. 

Also didn't duryodhana had the option of asking Krishna to side with him. He picked wrong. The choices we make. Even if you call Krishna the strategist, it was not his fault that the opposition preferred him over the army and hordes of warriors. 

Ah two different concepts  - ok lets see if I can explain how I see it. each "yug" is an ecosystem or an experiment of sorts. Consider Dwapara yug as the one where it was humanizing the rulers , who earlier like say in Treta Yug were almost made to be perfect. So we have rulers who have flaws as much as like the general public. But like all systems this was not perfect, the emotions in these humans were off-balance , hence a war like MB was required to teach humans the importance of control and restraint. The universal law has always been - restoring the balance of dharma. 
if say in MB kauravas were allowed to win , won't the message go out that jealousy, envy and rage are all good expressions. It would have set a wrong precedent .

Ganga killed off her son, but did she ever was spared by this horror? Also should we not think about the circumstances, if we consider Ganga as a mere mortal woman.Its another grey, something similar to how we view abortions in current times, too.





Edited by charminggenie - 9 years ago
Posted: 9 years ago
I think the message of Krishna is quite simple: if ever you encounter murderers, molesters, cheats, power mongers, human rights abusers, thugs, and, in general, people predisposed to committing evil acts (characters such as Duryodhan, Dushasan, Shakuni, Jayadrath etc) , even if they are related to you, even if they are backed by powerful friends who are passive/active supporters of their misdeeds (characters such as Karna), even if the elders in your own family decide to play dumb and deaf as mute spectators (characters such as Bheeshma, Dhritarashtra), even if these bad elements are backed by people whom you revere (characters like Drona and Kripa), even if all these people outnumber you 100 to 1, you stick to what is right, stand your ground, fight them and decimate them by hook or by crook.

You can assume that in principle The Lord is with you if you have done mostly right in your life, but you have to also understand that He is not going to fight your battles for you (unless a divine interference is called for :)
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by K.Universe.


I think the message of Krishna is quite simple: if ever you encounter murderers, molesters, cheats, power mongers, human rights abusers, thugs, and, in general, people predisposed to committing evil acts (characters such as Duryodhan, Dushasan, Shakuni, Jayadrath etc) , even if they are related to you, even if they are backed by powerful friends who are passive/active supporters of their misdeeds (characters such as Karna), even if the elders in your own family decide to play dumb and deaf as mute spectators (characters such as Bheeshma, Dhritarashtra), even if these bad elements are backed by people whom you revere (characters like Drona and Kripa), even if all these people outnumber you 100 to 1, you stick to what is right, stand your ground, fight them and decimate them by hook or by crook.

You can assume that in principle The Lord is with you if you have done mostly right in your life, but you have to also understand that He is not going to fight your battles for you (unless a divine interference is called for :)

Umm as usual , sealing it with words, Mr K. Agree with everything.😊
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by LeadNitrate


Vinzy, palace  of illusions  is not mahabharat. Ita interpretation  of the author alone.

True, but it raises some interesting questions and provides a different perspective. Food for thought if nothing else.

e.g. "I'm going to heaven to enjoy all its pleasures with my friends. You'll rule a kingdom peopled with widows and orphans and wake each morning to the grief of loss. Who's the real winner, then, and who the loser?" - Duryodhana, Palace of Illusions.

I think this is probably something quite a few of us struggle to come to terms with. The idea of the greater good, sticking to what is right and standing your ground when you know you are on the side of dharma (as mentioned above by Mr. K) is great in theory. But at what cost? Widows, orphaned children. The Pandavas got Draupadi the justice that she craved for, that she deserved, but at the cost of the Pandavas being left childless. Did the end justify the means?

Originally posted by LeadNitrate


Let us not judge Kunti so harshly. Kunti did what tones of teenage mothers do on a daily basis, closed adoption, leaving kids in foster care. Do we judge them? Apply same standard for all.

I don't judge Kunti for the unfortunate circumstances and social stigma she was faced with. Karna did get a good upbringing despite the social injustice he was faced with at many stages in his life. But if you're comparing the situation to a modern day scenario where a mother leaves her child up for adoption/child lives in an orphanage, then also consider the very realistic scenario/similarities in parents leaving their crying children on the steps of a Mandir or leaving their child in a dustbin as often happens, and being uncertain of the child's future/health/well-being. 
Edited by hindu4lyf - 9 years ago
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by hindu4lyf



True, but it raises some interesting questions and provides a different perspective. Food for thought if nothing else.

e.g. "I'm going to heaven to enjoy all its pleasures with my friends. You'll rule a kingdom peopled with widows and orphans and wake each morning to the grief of loss. Who's the real winner, then, and who the loser?" - Duryodhana, Palace of Illusions.

I think this is probably something quite a few of us struggle to come to terms with. The idea of the greater good, sticking to what is right and standing your ground when you know you are on the side of dharma (as mentioned above by Mr. K) is great in theory. But at what cost? Widows, orphaned children. The Pandavas got Draupadi the justice that she craved for, that she deserved, but at the cost of the Pandavas being left childless. Did the end justify the means?

I think first the war was fought for reasons way more and bigger than just Draupadi's revenge. It was a mere precursor, the inevitability of war was always there considering how one set of brothers were always vying for the other's blood. If not Draupadi, some other reason would have been used. The power balance was unfairly leaning towards the unjust. 

See in this case , end does justify means, like Mr. K mentioned it gives you hope and encouragement to fight battles even if the odds are stacked against you. Sure there would be collateral damage, causalities and grief but the lesson and will it provides to future generations is important. There are many wars still fought in this world for the right intent or reason like say for independence, the victims - become Martyrs. 

I might be shooting far off with this, but Harry Potter too also offers the same defense - Sure Teddy lost his parents or a young Colin died . The whole underdogs defeating the Dark Lord. With ably guided by Albus D who thought and knew things more than anyone , his presence like Krishna was not an unfair advantage - rather it was to serve a greater lesson of hope and just


(Excuse the Harry Potter analogy- late night ramblings)

Posted: 9 years ago
Thqnks Genie for mentioning  hp. I find it amusing  how people who rsve about  hp, underdogs  defeating  a force of darkness, a planner plotter wise person,  who should  ideally  be neutral,  turn around  and Diss the pandavas. 
Ps don't  take comparison  literally. I don't  mean duri was as dark  or depraved as voldy  moldy. But the basic idea is that. And since  vyas is a greater  master of the craft, he has provided  space for interpretation and greyness in eveeyone.
Posted: 9 years ago
Dia, I agree with  it on one point. No one really  won in the war. One of the message. But chitra b makes Drauapdi  a screaming,  screeching  woman without  any sense, who stoked fire of revenge  day and night  and didn't  care about anything  else. I don't  think  epic Drauapdi  was that indecisive  or that senseless. She was afterall a princess  and later a queen,  an empress.
Then what duri said, is a bit tweaked by her. In the epic before sying, duri said I lived like a king in luxury  and I die kike a kibge, while u have lived  in jungle  all ur life and now u inherit a Kingdom  full of widows.

But it waw as much duryodhan  fault  as pandave. Panw brokered for peace  till ene, duri would  not bend a bit. Yoi cannot  expect  someone to five up their everything  for sake of peace. Igs so escapist. Even if right to hp was controversial,  IP is something  they built, with their hard work. Terms for second  game was they would get back  after the exile. 
Its like pawning  something and not getting  it back  even after u paid full amount. 
Still, pandavas  dis not go for war outright. They may have gathered  their forces, but they kept sending  emissaries. 
First emissary  from dhritarashtra  came wirh message yudi should  forgoe his claim and live on charity  of others. Elder or not, the sheer audacity  of the message  is massive. 
If pandavas  had given up their claim what message  would they send out for posterity?  

War being  over I think yudi  as a king deserves a lot of kudos. He turned that war ridden, bankrupt  country into something  prosperous. Much like how Adenauer  did to west germany  post ww2.
The mb war can be considered  as an ancient  world  war. The reach  was till gandhar and madra and as far was pragjyotish in East. Almost  till borders of modern Iran and Burma. I doubt  such a vast and magnificent  war was fought  only  due to a woman. Her humiliation  could  have been a huge trigger,  but it was not the driving  force.

I loved poi as book. I finished  it in one sitting  overnight. But when I read it again,  I find  chitra B has so much plot holes, sp draupadi  is turned into typical  soap opera heroine who cannot  even decide properly. She turned on eof strongest  and fiercest  woman in epic world to practically  a Bella swan.
I still love poi as a book, but  I don't  take it seriously  anymore.
Posted: 9 years ago
Hi..interesting questions...ones I've always thought over
Was VH okay? Obviously not. I think VH episode could be symbolism of how society was getting stripped of morals literally and Lord stepped in to save whatever remaining modesty the people had...Draupadi had already been humiliated enough Krishna only saved her from a greater level of embarassment which would have been akin to death for woman of those times...

it could be parallel of gowmata story..the entire mother earth was symbolized as cow and by beginning of kali yuga she was only on one leg and she cried out to the Lord and he promised to come save her and punish those who had defiled her...

I see Karna as failed genius. If he wanted he could have challenged the system and been a great social reformer..he had protection of kavach...and yet he chose to operate within the system and use his divine protection for petty motives of his friends...I don't think he was a victim of casteism...if he wanted he could have  done penance and rebelled and punished all those who mocked him..if asuras could get vardaans then why not him? God doesn't see caste.

also his loyalty to duryodhan seems more motivated by personal desire to avege himself than any real consideration of friendship

not going to comment on Yudi..would need to read more about character before making any judgements..

Krishna is everything...entire MB can be seen as plan by him to restore dharma and aid in transition of society from one yug to another..he knew kaliyuga was coming so he attempted to teach people what is just and righteous for one last time..so they would keep it in mind while society kept breaking down..




Related Topics

No Related topics found

Topic Info

17 Participants 81 Replies 8991Views

Topic started by LeadNitrate

Last replied by LeadNitrate

loader
loader
up-open TOP