I have a lot of doubts in Mahabharata, which I will be glad if anyone who reads this blog answers
I will just list them out: ( they may have been strongly worded, because I am a bit passionate about these things as I am writing this, so please bear with me)
1) What gives the Pandavas , the right to rule? Technically speaking, Pandu was kinda, giving proxy to Dhritharashtra, because Dhritharashtra was blind. That does not mean that Pandu's children automatically get the right to Kinship does it? IF so, then how come even in Valis abscence (when he went to fight some rakshasa in a cave), Angada, Valis son (not Sugrivas son) was hailed as the Crown Prince?
2) Secondly, none of Pandus Children are really "Pandu's" children, as he cannot have sex and is cursed. So , "Technically" speaking the Pandavas, are not really "Pand"avas are they?
3) Can someone tell me one single incident/story/excerpt other than the "Yakshas answer" episode, where Yushishtra displays the fact that he is rightly called "Dharma Raja"
4) I feel Yudhishtra, got more than his quota of good luck. Why is he hailed so ?
5) Abhimanyu was killed by many warriors - An act of breaking the rules, accepted. I put it 1 bad point on Kauravas side , but for the part of Pandavas,
a) Bheeshma has thrown his weapon down on seeing Shikandi. Now why does Arjuna fire on a "Nirayudhapaani" - 1 bad point for pandavas
b) Drona is meditating for the loss of his son. Why did Dhrishtadyumna cut the head of a "Nirayudhapaani" - 2 bad points for pandavas
c) Karna was a "Nirayudhapaani" when he got killed - 3 bad points for pandavas
d) Krishna had to ask even the Dharma of Karna as a Dharma, and Karna gave even that and then died - 4th bad point
e) There was a time in the war when Bheeshma was destroying the Pandava army like hell and everyone was fleeing here and there when Krishna, the person who Vowed that he will not take up arms, got so angry, he took a nearby chariots Wheel and used it as a "Chakrayudha" and was about to strike Bheeshma down, when Bheesma stopped and bowed down and reduced his fury of attack henceforth.
Why does Krishna threaten to attack?
f) Dhuryodhana was killed by hitting him beneath the hip. I wonder really what the Judge Balarama was doing watching the fight? (Maybe he dozed off as it was taking too ling)....please donot give me the justification that Bheema had vowed to break the thighs of Dhuryodhana to avenge Draupadi. Yes, I accept that. But you are supposed to do it "After" you win over him. You are not supposed to use that to win over him - 6th bad point
g) Kunti playing spoilsport by asking Karna the following
i) Don't kill any of my sons other than Arjuna
ii) Don't fire more than one life taking arrow on Arjuna per day (huh? What do u expect, that u should fight Arjuna with ping pong balls, and sponge dolls when he is raining fire on u?)
h) Krishna tricks by causing a solar eclipse, and Jayadrata is slain as a result of that - 10th bad point
i) Karnas Kavacha Kundalas are stolen, yes, "stolen" from him by Indra. I will only word it that way. It is pure exploitation of Karna - 11th bad point
j) Ashvattama is seized of his "Mani" because he refused to take back the Brahmastra, supposedly shot to eliminate Parikshit and the entire Pandu Vamsa thereon, and he becomes powerless. But finally Krishna comes and saves Parikshit's life as well. Now of what use was Ashvatttamas Brahmastra? Was he not cheated of his only power , the "Mani" which gave him immense strength? - 12th BP
All these make me wonder if the so called "Dharma Yudhdha" should actually be called so. I can keep increasing this count endlessly, and the more deeply I read, I dig more shit out of it.
6) Why did Draupadi marry 5 men? Is Polyandry ok?
7) As woodworm pointed out, what right does Yudhishtra have to put his wife at stake in the game of dice after he has given himself up?
8) Arjuna keeps on marrying wherever he goes...why are these wives not staying with him? Does he just give them a son/daughter and disappear?
9) The Pandavas suddenly lose all their power towards the very end of the epic....how exactly does that take place?
10) Gandhari got 100 sons (a tough job to give birth to 100 children, ...must have taken her atleast 20 years of childbirth, if on an average she gave birth to 5 children per pregnancy).
11) Bheeshma vows not to marry, and his father blesses him with the boon which makes him live as long as he wishes to. As per any other epic/story etc. I have heard of , even Lord Brahma or Lord Siva cannot grant the boon of infinite life, then how can a mortal, make Bheeshma sort of immortal by blessing him so....sadly Bheeshma did not make use of it and chose to die. I wouldve been glad to see him today :(
13) Kichaka insults Draupadi and Yudhistra just stands and watches and does not lift a finger :(. Finally she had to run to Bhima to handle the Kichaka problem...Can't yudhishtra have done something about it?
14) Bheeshma sleeps big time when Draupadi is being stripped in a court. This I Certainly can never digest. The Draupadi's strip incident is perhaps the saddest thing that happened in Mahabharata, and one very good reason why I feel Kauravas deserved punishment. But, what were Dhritharashtra, Bheeshma, Vidura,Drona and Kripacharya doing all the time? Can't they order their disciples/children to pack the nonsense? or did they want to watch the show themselves? Horrible example these elders have set. No dharma in this world will force me to watch such a nonsense.
I cannot tolerate even if Blade Kabaaali or Pattaasu Pakkiri behaved that way, leave alone my kith and kin. I will be the first to stand up and deliver 2 slaps right across their cheeks and throw them out of my house were they to behave this way. :(
On the whole, I feel the Dhritharashtra family was badly treated during the war atleast. I feel they did not get what they deserved. I strongly feel for Karna especially who would have "Technically" been the king, instead of Yudhistra, IF a Pandava has to rule....which too I Feel is wrong.
Inputs awaited on this. As always....want to learn more.....
18 comments:
I might look like prevaricating here but honestly what do you mean by "answer"? Surely, with dozens of people coming with their own interpretations within three days - there can be no unqualified answer to your questions.
For one, Yudhishtira looks like a victim to me. Especially at our hands. Not in one place does he claim that he is Dharma Raja or whatever he is supposed to be. Attribute that to modesty or subtle attention grabbing, but the idea is he does not. So, it was the mobs and gods of those times who thought him to be better of their lot. And I am sure mugging up 10,000 questions would never make one answer that the mind is faster than the wind and similar replies to other treacherous questions. He was not playing KBC, was he?
I would also like to point out this conspiracy theory (no hyperlinks, only hearsays as it is in these cases): in the original version it was the Pandavas who were the usurpers, and the Kauravas the wronged ones. Down the line (was it Janamejaya :)), it was subverted into the story that we all know of. The flaws in the story became a case of munged variable swapping and bad code merging. So, with a bad version in your hand we should adopt the policy of taking the good and leaving out the bad. Back to square one :).
I find lot of intersting discussions on the Indian epics, here is something more to add fuel to the fire ;-)
http://www.sysindia.com/forums/Ladies_Corner/posts/10051.html
To be Frank, i dont remember much about Ramayana and Mahabharatha ( especially,the intricate details you guys are discussing),probably will read them again !
Something out of topic, are the mega serials on the Indian epics deviating from the actual story line, especially the ones that came out after Mahabaratha (like Sri Krishna, Hanuman etc)?
CB, Let me try. All disclaimers implied.
You seem to be framing them here anyways.
http://mindwarrior.blogspot.com/2005/03/answers.html
1. No one gave the Pandavas the right to rule. Imagine Dhritarashtra to be the president of a company, hopelessly outnumbered in the boardroom with Pandu as the ex-CEO who made the board members rich with more kingdoms. Yudhisthira becomes the next-in-line, naturally. He was the 'chosen one' among 106 people.
After Duryodhana's 'appeals', folks reached a settlement (Indo-Pak partition) - moved to Indraprastha after razing down a forest (Greenpeeeeeeece). And they eclispsed Hastinapur (can you imagine a stronger Bangladesh??) - which again led people to fight. And the conqueror got control over the whole thingy. As simple as that IMO.
2. It is not uncommon for 'stepsons' to take after their stepfather even today
3. Sort of answered in my earlier comment.
4. I have no clue. I bet even Yudhistira did not have a clue :).
5. Trivially, all is fair in love and war. Too bad that the US could not make a Dharma Yuddha out of the War on Terrorism. Blame it on their war newsroom. The main criteria for adopting all those activities was that anyone who stood on the side of the global adharma (though they were following their own local dharma) - could be defeated through treacherous means.
6. No answer. 7. Absolutely no right. I am still under the impression that after Krishna's miracle, everything and everyone was restored to the gamblers. And then the second round made them go into exile. Now why they consented to playing the game a second time is again a can of not so good slimy things.
8. Arjuna did not have the necessary infrastructure like Krishna, I guess. You are right, the whole sojourn is absolutely pointless. Also, things like Ulupi could have been additions influenced by later rulers / poets in respective regions who wanted their line firmly esconsed in tradition via these epice. Who doesn't want fame?
9. It was pointed out amidst these discussions that Rama became a 'mortal' after killing Ravana. Similar stuff goes for Parashurama. Narasimha. Typically, avatars have had a melting point. Same goes for demi-gods or godly humans. Like Arjuna gave the Gandiva back to Agni, I think. Like Bhishma decided, "Heck, I gotta go".
10. !!
11. Hard work always pays. Shantanu apparently had a current account surplus with his penance. And in that yuga, the amount of effort to see God was relatively lesser [I am not sure about this :)]. And Bhishma would sure not have wished to talk to me the way I am portraying him.
12. Nothing to add here.
13. Please leave poor Yudhishtira alone :).
14. Absolutely. The only guy who profited was the owner of Binny Mills.
Karna - Poor soul. Some do not get what they deserve. Some do not deserve what they get.
Will compile after every1 finished :)
HI, I think the real purport of the epic mahabharata is that there will be good and evil ( Kauravas & Pandavas), play your part as well as possible. The rest - that is the outcome is with God ( or Krishna here), if at all there is God ( or God in human form)
Hi "Whoiscb",
The way you've put forth your doubts is very rude. This is not the kind of attitude, expected from a person who wants to know.
When you are under "DOUBT", you DON'T have the right to conclude.
So, how can you conclude this....."Krishna had to shamelessly ask even the Dharma of Karna as a Dharma, and Karna gave even that and then died" ?
You should be allowed to die with all these doubts, iff you don't change your mindset.
Anybody who tries to answer you, is simply wasting his time.
**************
Friends, BEWARE!
It is these kind of fools, who misunderstand scriptures & degrade it.
If sublime philosophy is imparted/shared to unqualified & corrupted heads, they further misuse it to propound their nonsense philosophies.
Oh Lord, save us & also this fool.
-Dilip S
maga dileepa Ivanyarooo Serial pranii Kanooo
Hello Mr. X Fool X
Namaskara....
- Pls understand TV Serials will never answer ur questions...
- The makers of TV serial are Worried about money not about Truth
- If u apply logic towards grasping Wrong / bad points in mahabaratha -Mahabaratha will only reveal Wrong never truth.
- If u use ur Inttelect u can never understand truth but use ur Intution... if ur Truthful in understanding Truth
Truth will definetly Reveal truth
jai Sriram
Guru..........!
I'll answer all your questions:- then you must promise to take this thing off the net.
1.In the Kuru Vansh the right to rule was not by virtue of being the first son - but being the able son. Thats why Bharat gave the throne not to his son but to an outsider. Yudhisthir was able and accepted by masses.
2.In those days it was enough if some one was married to be able to give one's name...it was culture and rightly so. Equate it to test tube baby and you get it.
3.As any hindu will tell u (I'm sure you're not a hindu), kshama hi dharam hai. to forgive is divine. Yudhister had that quality thats why he was dharam raj
4.hypothical question - desnt require answer
5.if you break one rule - you start acycle. At the begning of the war - Pandavas promise no first breakage of rule...its like no fisrt use of nuclear weapon...but if Pakistan attacks Mumbai - you'll go ahead and detroy whole of Pakistan.
6.Draupdi married 5 ppl because that was part of boon given by Lord Shiv. In her previous birth she had aksed for a husband who should have - Hanuman's strength, Dharma raj's justice, Rama's marksmanship, excellent swordsmanship and he must be very beautiful. Shiv ji said its not possible for any one man to have all this. She persisted. 5 pandavas was result of that boon.
7.Gandhari gave birth in "matkas"...equivalent of test tubes? clones?
If you are in any way convinced by these - post comment so i can complete the rest of answers.
@ All : Thanks a lot for your answers and comments. I got a lot of insights from you all and I myself did some research and pretty much concluded what you all have so well pointed out.
@Abhishek : I am a hindu and a brahmin and have a lot of interest in hinduism and in fact, I tend to believe that it is the oldest and the richest religion in the world.
However I am not going remove this post for 1 reason.
1) If I am born into this religion and I myself have so many doubts uncleared, then imagine how would the world feel about this religion. In case people have similar doubts as mine, they can come here and read all of your answers and get it clarified.
Anyways, thank you all for patiently trying to clear my doubts.
I would however change the way the questions are asked so as to not seem rude.
Answers to some of your questions:
1) Why couldn't Yudhisthira kill Kichaka?
Draupadi was enough diplomatic herself. Yudhisthira would have digested the insult more than give away their hideout.
Furthermore, there were very few people who could kill Kichaka. They were: Krishna, Parshurama, Balarama, Drona, Bheeshma, Duryodhana, Karna and Bheema. Yudhisthira was not named among those who had the powress to kill Kichaka
2) Why was Yudhisthira the rightful heir?
Because Yuvraj was declared by ability not by mere birthright. Yudhisthira was not only eldest but also the most able to rule as he proved in the Yuvraj test (when Karna came for the first time).
3) Were the Pandavas the son's of Pandu?
Sex by proxy for reproduction purpose only was allowed in that era. So not only were the Pandavas the sons of Pandu despite not being born out of him, but also Pandu and Dhritarashtra were born out of Ved Vyas but still were legally Vichitraveerya's sons.
4) 100 sons of Gandhari:
Gandhari was frustrated that she didn't give birth to her first son before Kunti. So she in despair pushed her son out of her body. Instead of a healthy son, she gave birth to a lump of mass. She got some help of some sage who split the mass into 100 sons.
The answers given to all thes questions are correct. Theon missed...here it goes:
4) Bheeshma sleeps big time when Draupadi is being stripped in a court. This I Certainly can never digest. The Draupadi's strip incident is perhaps the saddest thing that happened in Mahabharata, and one very good reason why I feel Kauravas deserved punishment. But, what were Dhritharashtra, Bheeshma, Vidura,Drona and Kripacharya doing all the time? Can't they order their disciples/children to pack the nonsense? or did they want to watch the show themselves? Horrible example these elders have set. No dharma in this world will force me to watch such a nonsense.
Bhishma wowed to see the image of his father in Dhritarashtra who did not object to the offence to Drupadi, infact to the whole plot until Bhim is about to attack Duryodhna. This is why he does not do anyting. Even Drona and Krip owed to Dhirtarashtra for their jobs and what they have till date. That is why they choose to fight from the Kauravs side in the battle also.
One more answer:
Dhuryodhana was killed by hitting him beneath the hip. I wonder really what the Judge Balarama was doing watching the fight? (Maybe he dozed off as it was taking too ling)....please donot give me the justification that Bheema had vowed to break the thighs of Dhuryodhana to avenge Draupadi. Yes, I accept that. But you are supposed to do it "After" you win over him. You are not supposed to use that to win over him - 6th bad point.
Bhima only took 2 seconds to hit the 2 good shots to Duryodhna below the belt after the hint from Krishna. Balaram immediately cam with his mace but it was Krishna who quickly intervened with his set of words and saved Bhima from Balaram. Then, balaram said he would always be proud of Duryodhna and left. Hehe...he was not not sleeping but was too far of at that moment.
Two more:
Questions: Can someone tell me one single incident/story/excerpt other than the "Yakshas answer" episode, where Yushishtra displays the fact that he is rightly called "Dharma Raja".
Answe: Actually Yaksha asked over 20 questions to test Yudhistir which he answered correctly. Also, he is also known to have his balance of mind on many occasions. That is why he is known as Dharmaraja.
Question: Ashvattama is seized of his "Mani" because he refused to take back the Brahmastra, supposedly shot to eliminate Parikshit and the entire Pandu Vamsa thereon, and he becomes powerless. But finally Krishna comes and saves Parikshit's life as well. Now of what use was Ashvatttamas Brahmastra? Was he not cheated of his only power , the "Mani" which gave him immense strength? - 12th BP
Answer: Ashwathama gives his mani himself in the end and asks for forgiveness from Sri Krishna. No one took from him.
jst one ansswer...thats why its called MYTHOLOGY....
Gr8 that u read the whole book...amazing knowledge, n gr8 questions....
U r a proud human being, i dnt believe in religions, I believe thers one GOD, n i dnt want to know his name, or how he looks, or from which religion am I...
Answer to Query 1)
In your question, both the cases mentioned are pretty much the same. Pandu was the elder brother, and Vali was also the elder brother. The elder son, or his son has the right to throne, before the younger sons or his sons.
The Pandavas has a 'share' and thus their right to rule.
While Vali was away, Sugriva ruled. But Vali's son is the eldest after Sugriva and not Sugriva's son. Hence, Vali's son is the answer in absence of Sugriva.:)
That's been the tradition in India.
Answer 2)
Krishna was never Yashoda's son. He was devaki's. But he is always known to be Yashoda's, and consequently Nanda's son!
It's pretty much the way adoption works!
I don't really think killing Bhisma, Drona or Karna was against any war rule in literal sense even though we may call it as different way. Some may call it a cowardice act or some may call it a well planned strategy.
Here is the reason -
1. The chariot of Bhisma/Drona or Karna was not broken completely nor their steeds were killed. Their chariot was intact. In case of Karna only the left wheel sank in mud but that was an exceptional case which never happened before.
2. They were not unarmed. They had option to keep fighting but they chose not to fight. Bhisma chose not to fight against Shikandi even though the other warriors of Kaurava never had any problem in fighting him. Remember Shikandin was a man when he was fighting in War.
Drona chose not to fight and sat in praya vow when he heard his son has died (even though he was lillng left and right and every one is some body's son) where Karna tried to pull his left wheel even after Krishna warned him literally that Arjuna will not stop fighting.
3. Those three warriors didn't asked for mercy
4. They didn't surrendered to Panadavas.
5. They didn't fled as well.
As long as I know the rule was a warrior shouldn't harm a person who asked for mercy or surrendered or fleeing from war field or whose chariot is broken/ chariot less or completely unarmed - In case of Abhimanyu his chariot was completely broken and he was made unarmed. He had no weapon to fight still he kept fighting using a wheel.
In war field you don't make drama either you fight till end whatever means or u flee or surrender.
Post a Comment