let's discuss the biggest epic ever: MAHABHARAT - Page 7

Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by -Aarya-




Crime is crime, either done on a basis of righteousness or for the sake of killing, doesn't change output, and as you also stated that Pandavas did pay a hefty price as well.


Defining this crime is a very subjective thing and depends on a variety of factors. An armyman killing a terrorist to save a life , might not be considered a crime , rather he is rewarded. 

Pandavas for sure paid the price but what they gained for humanity was paramount - faith, hope and courage . 


Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by peridot.


check the bold. From what I read Draupadi never had a childhood and was "directly an adult". 
The MB is full of instances of supernatural births and other events which puts it more in line with a mythology.  The birth of Shishupala, Jarasandha, Kauravas, Krishna, Vyasa were all abnormal or extraordinary.
 
A few random thoughts--
 
If Pandavas were not biological children of Pandu whereas the Kauravas were biological sons of Dhritirashtra there was bound to be a dispute for the claim to HP throne.
 
Vyasa was Satyawati's son out of wedlock just as Karna was Kunti's . However Rishi Vyasa was a revered rishi whereas Karna's birth  was supposed to be socially unacceptable.
 
Rishi Parashuram was Vishnu's avatar yet Karna was cursed by him when it was "discovered " that he was a kshatriya and not a brahmin. How could someone "fool" an avatar of Vishnu? On the otherhand if Parashuram had been aware that Karna had been lying why did he teach him in the first place?
 
Was asking for the thumb of Eklavya as gurudakshina a part of dharma or adharma?
 
More later--
 
 

Aware of these incidents but we were trying to remove the supernatural element and see how it might have layed out if things were as normal as of now.

@Bold - Depends on the intent behind asking as GuruDakshina. 
Posted: 9 years ago

Eklavya

This is a complicated incident. Like many events in Mahabharata, I don't think it can be truly classified as adharma or dharma.

In the small scheme of things, it reeks of adharma. Drona unfairly took advantage of Eklavya's devotion. He was prejudiced towards Arjuna and denied Eklavya his glory.

However, would Eklavya have been as well known if he had not sacrificed his thumb? As a lowly tribal boy, he would never have had the opportunity to go to war or compete in tournaments like the nobles did. He may have never got the opportunities. He may have been a character lost in the pages of history. That one sacrifice, that one expensive gurudakshina made Eklavya renown for being a prized student and great warrior. Maybe Drona gave him the only shot at glory that was due to him.

In the grand scheme of things Drona's demand of an unfair gurudakshina sets the stage for many things. Would Arjuna have ever grown to be the warrior he was if he didn't believe he had Drona's undivided attention? Would Arjuna have agreed to pay Drona his heavy gurudakshina of raising arms against him and fighting unto death. Seeing Eklavya's sacrifice made Arjuna keen on impressing Drona further. And without Arjuna promising battle as gurudakshina the outcome of Kurukshetra would be different.


Also we need to remember Drona was not renown for his dharma. As a Brahmin who lived a kshatriya lifestyle he was already frowned upon. He made many questionable decisions during war as well. In fact people were convinced Drona abandoned ethics of warfare when he was commander in chief. Drona was a revered good guy, but he had immensely dark shades to his character.

Posted: 9 years ago
On Eklavya 
Was he not the cousin of Krishna? He was a tribal Prince of Magadha. And a close associate of Jarashandha. Hence he was a foe for Yadav and Kuru Clan. Perhaps , Drona recognized the eminent threat he possessed to hastinapur and Krishna, combined with his promise to Arjuna- he decided to ask for such a cruel GuruDakshina. Greater Good or not, Drona seemed to pay for it , though for a knowledgeable sage I think he knew about the "adharma" he did. Choice/Karma.

Also was Eklavya not killed by Krishna?

Another point, the dog was distrubing him while he was practicing so he fills his mouth with the arrow, power misused. Does that animal cruelty was the "adharma" that took his powers which he used to show off.

Interesting to see the position and power tribals , low castes etc enjoyed during those times.
Posted: 9 years ago
What drona did cannot be perhaps condoned. 
But eklavya can be interpreted in another way. He made drona is guru and he practised dhanurvidya on his own. It is possible he snuck up on dronas lessons without really paying dorrnit by time ans hard work. Whatever toils he die to peefect his skill, was for himseof only, unlike the pandavas ans kauravas, he dis not do guru's bidding as was custom of the day.
Secondly, the simply barking of the dog wws so irritating to him, that instead of shutting it up, shooing it away, he sew its mouthnwith arrows. How do u define that on cruelty scale? So as genie said, he misused his skills, which he acquired a little shady way. Theeegore he was not fit enough to reap full advantage of the skills.
In todays time and world too we fins people, unfairly reaping benefit of skills which are not perfect, or choices given. Like say a political power to an undeserving candidate. And it usually reaps ill for all.

People like eklavya used underhanded tactic ro gain something he perhaps did not deserve, karna lied to parashuram to get his warrior skill, resulting in them not reaping full benefit of theie skill.
I dont know if we should condemn ambition of karna or eklavya or not, I don't think we should.
But this shows, the ways we choose to fulfill out ambitions might just backfire on us.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Parasuram is considered biahnu avatar but I am not surenif he can be considered a teue boue or aware of his divinity. Because when ram beoke har dhanush, he came to challenge Ram too, and when ram broke his dhanush, he went to offer his naman to vishnu avatr.
Now why would one bihsnu avatar, bow before another? That too face to face.
This makes me speculate perhaps the original parashuram wss a warrior Brahmin social reformer who took ipon arms to restore balance between the growing greed and cruelty of khatriya rulers od his time. Hence this man os considered an avatar. Ans he later formed a school of such warrior brahmins, much like ninja, who carried the title parashuram, ans were knowledgeable Brahmin warriors, well respected for their code of conduct and aloofness to worldly affairs in general,
.
I mean how can a parashuram,  who decimated khatriyas before ram live through age of ram, and then remain able enough to teach bheesma ages later and then karna,  who is two generations later.

And if we take him s vishnus immortal ansh avatar parallely existing with ram and krishna, then maybe he took on karna, because hia dedication and hard work and talent impressed him, he knew karna worldr have a part tp play in future drama ans yet the ruthles ambitii of karna, which prompted him to lie to his teacher msust call for some punishment.

Posted: 9 years ago
Excuse all typos, typing from tablet.
And too tired to edit.
Posted: 9 years ago

Genie - Eklavya becomes a close aide of Jarsandha after the gurudakshina incident. He is killed in the war between Krishna and Jarsandha over Rukmini. Not sure if he is personally killed by Krishna.

 

I thought he interlocked the arrows around the dogs mouth to keep it shut without harming him. That was the skill that awed everyone. Otherwise I think anyone could fill a dogs mouth with arrows. If he harmed the dog, then the question of dharma arises. Even then, there is selfishness where he placed himself above the dogs comfort. What about the dog eating, drinking etc. later.

Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by -Aarya-




Crime is crime, either done on a basis of righteousness or for the sake of killing, doesn't change output, and as you also stated that Pandavas did pay a hefty price as well.


Arya I think I have to disagree with you.
Beacuse if u say, every murder will be considered releasing some soul, then revenege for one murder can also not be condemned. Then the whole basis of society or punihsment should also not exist. Because there will be divine retribution anyway, soul is eternal. So when a person is murdered, a woman is raped, poor people are tortured, the person perpetrator should not be punished by us, because its all a soul and nothing is really dead, or if someone kills the perpetrator or does horrible things to the person or their family in return, it is also not crime. Bevause they are all souls.
So basically whole fabric of society will fsll down and we would enter anarchy,  law of jungle.
Besides krishna in gita says soul is eternal indestructible. He also says I am everywhere, in rocks, in sky,  I am everybody.
So does that mean a murderer should not murder becauzr he is murdering himself?

It is a complicated situation if we interpret these things so literally. 
Because then one will not take any responsibility for his acyion. Same gita also savys one has to take responsibility for ones action and do their karma without any desire.

So anyway, when itbis said, soul is indestructible, it means our true essence, the divinity in bus cannot be destroyed. We can die, reborn, do our work, but this is all a veil. When we will understand it, we will stop discriminating.
A person who knows this, stops hurting others, even feeding, or breathing, because everything is himself, and he is everything. But such a realisation is not easy to come by.
You can shout at rooftop that you and me are one and same. But if I say slap ypu, ypu will feel the pain. But someone who truly has realised the truth, should not feel it, because its nothing but maya, the you and me and slapping.
Hence krishna says soul is eteenal, body wastes away and decays and is formed again. But that does not mean ypu should not do your duty. Do it with as less attachment you can, and finally u may realise truth.

Saying. Since all soul is eternal, a murderer is not guilty is seing half of it. Because then one should also consider everything is same and a murderer is basically killing himself or he doesn't exist as a separar entity at all. Until one comes to that realisation, where such mundane activities are futile, one cannot be absolved of one's responsibility.
If u can discriminate between you and me, hunger ans pain, feel them as reality, then you should also discriminate between eight mor wrong, crime and punihsment.

I hope i did not sound like babbling gibberish
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by return_to_hades


Genie - Eklavya becomes a close aide of Jarsandha after the gurudakshina incident. 

No clue tbh, but from what I have read his tribe was always in opposition to Yadav and kuru clan . So he was a natural enemy , true he picked his association with Jarasandha later. I am not sure how connected Krishna was with Hastinapur during the gurudakshina incident. Need to check the timeline. Though his tribe "nishada" was known to indulge in anti-social activities against Kuru , Drona refused him as a student on the principle that he cannot teach a student who might go against his employers. 

He is killed in the war between Krishna and Jarsandha over Rukmini. Not sure if he is personally killed by Krishna.

Well there is this whole thing about him stopping the rath that krishna was driving and was killed after a hurled stone hit him. His whole time with Jarashandha was shady. 

 

I thought he interlocked the arrows around the dogs mouth to keep it shut without harming him. That was the skill that awed everyone.

Shutting a dog's voice even if it might not cause physical harm - would it not come under harm, still? Barking is a  natural instinct for a Dog, afterall. He might have the skills and competence perhaps he lacked the character  to be an archer. 

 Otherwise I think anyone could fill a dogs mouth with arrows. If he harmed the dog, then the question of dharma arises.

 Even then, there is selfishness where he placed himself above the dogs comfort. Exactly , Dog's discomfort above himself when he could have avoided such situation.

 What about the dog eating, drinking etc. later. 

Not sure by this, but considering he was a pet , i hope he got some aid. 


The thing is MB is a study of perceptions. There are so many angles and so many ways to look at one situation. Hence I try to concentrate on the emotion than the character, at times. Also I feel Karma and Dharma were equally balanced out like Newton's third Law. Also by this logic , Drona too paid enough. 
Edited by charminggenie - 9 years ago
Posted: 9 years ago
Definitely the great epic Mahabharat can bring out many points of views on most of the episodes and the debates would be endless.
As far the Ekalavya episode, this is how I understand. At first, I will definitely say, I don't have very good opinion on Drona who never lived up to the principles in many occasions. As far Ekalavya, he was a tribal person as said in the epic and not a kshatriya. We can definitely accept, he was keen to learn archery nuances and he was successful to a good extent practicing all alone and hard. And thus he became a skillful archer also. But then, certain rules are followed in every kingdom and every country. The law of a country doesn't allow everyone to possess destructive weapons. Suppose I practice and practice with a gun and I have become a sharp shooter and I could aim at flying birds from a distance and shoot them off but I have no license to use the gun, what will be my position? I may be appreciated for my skill but the state has definitely the right to punish me for having skillful weapon. The law of land didn't permit the tribe persons to have destructive weapons and Drona those days was a Government Servant. Even in Gurukulas those days, everyone was not taught archery skills. Drona therefore had every right to do the needful to bring  Ekalavya down. If Ekalavya was interested in learning, he could have chosen any other discipline other than weaponry. In some versions, it is mentioned when Ekalavya came to Drona first seeking him to teach archery, Drona told him to concentrate on spiritual practices instead of archery.

Related Topics

No Related topics found

Topic Info

17 Participants 81 Replies 8993Views

Topic started by LeadNitrate

Last replied by LeadNitrate

loader
loader
up-open TOP