|
|
Post by subi24 on Aug 22, 2012 21:40:22 GMT 5.5
A member of another well-known forum has posted the following questions posed by his 7-year old grand daughter on Mahabharata:
1. When Dhritharashtra is considered as the king, where is the question of Yudhishtira claiming the throne? He is not the son of the King, whereas Duryodhana is really Dhritharashtra' s own son.
2. Yudhishtira is not the son of even Pandu, the king who was dead then. Yudhishtira' s father is Yamadharma, and hence not in the lineage of the Kuruvamsa. Hence, how can he have a claim over the kingdom?
3. Is it Dharma for a real Guru to ask the thumb of a Sishya as Gurudakshina, with the sole idea that he should not be able ot kill his beloved sishya, Arjuna
4. Is it Dharma for one single lady to have many husbands? She was referring to Draupadi.
5. Is it Dharma to stake one's own wife, without her consent, in a gambling game?
6. Is it right for Sakuni to play proxy to Duryodhana in the Chthuranga game, as per rules? Why did Yudhishtira not object to this?
7. Is it dharma to disrobe a woman in front of the big audience, while her 5 husbands watch?
8. Why did the great men like Bheema, Drona, Kripa, Vidura and others who had sympathy with the Pandavas, not come to help them in this crisis?
9. Why should Krishna take so much time to save Draupadi from this torture of humiliation, why could he not have avoided it in the beginning itself?
Further, he has added that if he were to continue the story, he may have to tell her what all other adharmic things Lord Krishna did to help Pandavas to win over the war against the Kauravas. Like covering the sun with his Sudarshana chakra to fool Jayadradha, to indicate to Bheema that he should strike at the thigh of Duryodhana to kill him, to direct Arjuna to kill Karna when he was unarmed, to instruct Yudhishtira to tell a 'lie' about the killing of "Ashwaththaama' , to keep Shikhandi in front of Bheema so that the latter will not fight etc. etc.
I am no expert in Mahabharata. There may be some highly knowledgeable members in this forum like Sarma Sastrigal who might be able to provide a fitting response to these questions. I invite them to share their considered views. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by balasubramani1956 on Aug 23, 2012 10:47:59 GMT 5.5
the same kind of questions are asked by my Daughter also.Kindly clarify the doubts raised by my daughter I am not well knowledge in mahabharatha.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kanchi Periva on Aug 23, 2012 13:08:51 GMT 5.5
Let me first thank Shri Subi Anna, our moderator, for bringing this to our attention.
Though we shall await more appropriate responses to this, I would like to record my view on such questions. It has become a fashion for the "rationalist" devotees to enter some forums and post such questions, ascribing them to their son/daughter. It is also a fact that many parents and grand parents of today do not have answers to such questions - simply because they have not done their homework of reading these epics in detail.
Everyone chooses to read an abridged edition published by a foreign author or atleast published in English because we have all forgotten our native language - Sanskrit has been dumped in favor of the commercial English. So, we all get to read these epics only second hand, and never get to realise the beauty and greatness of what is contained in the original masterpiece.
Also, if someone is narrating the Bhaarata to their kids, they must be fully aware of the facts and values enriched therein, as Mahabhaarata is not just a story - it is a great epic revered by Hindus. For sure, all the appropriate rationale and justifications are all embedded in the original script, to which we do not pay any attention. It is a real sad state of affairs that someone with a modern outlook and penchant for writing fiction stories, picks up the thread of Bhaarata or Ramayana and they publish a glamorous book on these titles - written more as a fiction title and devoid of any devotion at all.
Let us understand that Ramayana and Bhaarata are two sides of the same coin. They propagate and instill dharma in different ways. Both have got brothers who are together and live peacefully, and another set of brothers who are not in the dharmic way. We must pay appropriate attention to the moral values when we narrate such stories to kids, especially those of such young age. When our grandparents told us such stories, they never dealt in detail the subject of Draupadi being disrobed etc - they knew how to present it for an young mind, and let the kid understand in greater detail when he/she grows up and gets to read the epic.
Instead of sitting in judgement about whether such events are proper/appropriate and whether those are all correct, we must distill the exact values we want to inculcate in kids, and pass it on accordingly. Same kind of puzzling reaction will be there with anyone who reads Manu Dharma. This is because you cannot explain dharma without detailing adharma and drawing the line of distinction later.
There are so many instances where Periva has extolled the greatness of these epics. In fact, there is another one where someone spoke about the Raasa-lila portion of Srimath Bhagavatham, to which Periva has given an excellent reply beyond words - this is available elsewhere in the Forum.
To sum it up, we must create better awareness and devotion in our present generation of parents and grandparents, get them to understand the importance of Sanskrit and of the epics as well. If everyone of us become well versed in these ourselves, we can pass on the relay to our next generation and ensure that the light of knowledge continues to shine in this great Punya Bhoomi.
|
|
|
|
Post by darshini on Aug 23, 2012 15:30:49 GMT 5.5
The post does not seem to me as questions asked by a 7 year old child. I have personally seen such post in other forums which are deliberately asked by certain group of people who claim them to be for promoting Hinduism but actually against it.
This is one of the ways in which they create in the minds of the readers ‘disrespect and make them lose faith in their own religion.
Definitely the answer posted by the administrator is very apt.
The situation is like this:
My great grand fathers had completely read these Epics , Vedas and Dharma and could not or need not ask questions like this.
My grand fathers though did not read these in detail they knew that whatever our elders told us was right and true and lived without doubt. They had complete faith in our religion.
But it is only with my generation that they neither know anything about it or they have the faith to believe what our great epics say. But we think we are such great minds to be asking such questions.
And with this kind of thinking if we say the stories of Ramayana and Mahabaratha to our next generation I think most of our children will never respect and follow our great religion.
Personally I have found this forum to be a place for discussing healthy topics. This post does not belong to that category and I would like to bring to the notice of the moderators and administrator to be kindly watchful of such kind of posts which is actually not helping this forum and its purpose in any way.
|
|
|
|
Post by subi24 on Aug 24, 2012 7:11:23 GMT 5.5
I fully agree with the administrator's views. It is very easy to get misled due to lack of knowledge and proper understanding of the epics. It is also known that some people rush to push their own reasons for many events and come out with their own interpretations. Nevertheless, we should not cast aspersions on the genuineness of the questions nor dismiss them totally. On the contrary, I feel questions provide us an opportunity to think and enlarge our knowledge base and to educate others. I am indeed inspired by Periva's open mind when he took questions even from children despite attempts by others to silence them. While one needs implicit faith in our sanatana dharma and the epics, I think that just keeping mum and avoiding to answer questions may make the younger generation lose faith in our religion. Satkatha discourses, listening to holy men, and participating in a forum like this to spread knowledge help clear many doubts. Keeping this perspective, please permit me add the following in light of some of the questions raised:
1. As Periva said, "Vyasa, Mahabharata's author, lived during the time of the five Pandavas and was witness to the events narrated by him in his epic. It is called "Itihasam"="iti-ha-sam" (it has happened thus ). The "ha" in the middle means "without doubt", "truly". So an itihasa means a true story, also a contemporarary account." In the Puranas Vyasa has dealt with the stories or events of the past which of course is in keeping with their name (that is 'Puranas'). But how? Vyasa could see into the past as he could into the future. So what he has written of the past must be an eyewittness account. However, his contemporaries would not have known about them. The Mahabharata and Ramayana are different. When these works were first made known to the world most people must have been familiar with the characters and events described in them. There is thus no reason to doubt their authenticity. The 'ha' in 'itihasa' confirms this. The word 'itihasa' can also mean 'thus speak they' (that is 'great men say that it must be so'). The moral derived from the stories of Hiranyakasipu, Ravana, Duryodhana and are that they all occupied high positions and wallowed in pleasure but in the end they were ruined and are remembered today for their wickedness and the evil they did. Such stories are a source of inspiration as well as a warning for us: they encourage us to do good and pull us back from evil.The importance of the pursuit of dharma is explained through the long story of Dharmaputra [Yudhisthira] in the Mahabharata"
2. Mahabharata is really an account of what happens when dharma goes off the rails. The epic alerts us on human weaknesses as they exist, and is so highly thought of that it is also called the ("panchamo Vedah") Fifth Veda. It reminds us what all happened because of blind passion, jealousy, greed etc. It is well-known that Kauravas were cheaters and treacherous. Even before the war, they had tried to kill the Pandavas by trying to burn their palace. Duryodhana had tried to poison the food of Bheema. Duryodhana was an embodiment of jealousy - a quality that would ruin anyone. In his childhood, he could not win over the Pandavas in any Game. Krishna knew very well the weaknesses of the Kauravas and how to deal with them.
3. Yudhisthira was not only eldest but also the most qualified to rule the kingdom. Yudhisthira (meaning 'steady in war') well-known for his superior qualities and abilities to be a king not merely by birthright. He was well accepted by the masses.
4. Karna was a great person but when he saw prospects of gaining respect and wealth, he chose to be a friend of Duryodhana and helped him in all his hideous deeds. Karna never disclosed to his Guru Parasurama that he was a Kshatriya and on this account he was cursed by his Guru. During the war with Panadavas, Karna's chariot wheel got stuck. At this time. on the advice of Krishna, Arjuna shot arrows at Karna. Karna reminded Krishna on the dharmic rules of warfare. Krishna asked, "where were the dharmic rules when you killed the innocent cows of a poor Brahmin during hunting and also when you and your Kaurava friends attacked and killed the young weaponless Abhimanyu?" Karna deserved what he got.
We must strive to create more awareness and understanding of the greatness of our epics and not shy away from questions. Does anyone care to add more?
|
|
|
|
Post by darshini on Aug 30, 2012 17:57:53 GMT 5.5
I would like to answer a few questions asked in the post
When Dhritharashtra is considered as the king, where is the question of Yudhishtira claiming the throne? He is not the son of the King, whereas Duryodhana is really Dhritharashtra' s own son.
Dhritharashtra and Pandu are both the sons of Vichitraveerya. The property of the Father belongs to both the sons. SoIt is indeed the right of Yudhishtira and his brothers to claim his share of the kingdom which actually should have come to them from his Father Pandu.
|
|
|
|
Post by darshini on Aug 30, 2012 18:29:21 GMT 5.5
2. Yudhishtira is not the son of even Pandu, the king who was dead then. Yudhishtira' s father is Yamadharma, and hence not in the lineage of the Kuruvamsa. Hence, how can he have a claim over the kingdom?
After Pandu moved to the forest for penance with his wives he wanted to have children so that he does not die without a lineage. So with his permission both his wives chant the mantra taught by sage durvasar and they are blessed with children.
It is a general practice not only in olden times but even today, we perform certain homas and poojas for the want of a child. Sometimes we even pray to certain gods requesting them to give us children. So does that mean that they are not our children?
Those times very very powerful mantras were in practice. Such a mantra was given as a boon to Kunthi .
When she used those mantras she thought of a certain god like Yama -that she was blessed with a son from that god who had some of his qualities – that is Yama is called Dhramaraja because he always acts according to Dharma. Same way Yudhishtira always acts according to Dhrama.
So here we cannot say that he is not the son of Pnadu.
|
|
|
|
Post by subi24 on Aug 31, 2012 1:50:37 GMT 5.5
Very good answer and most appropriate. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by karpaka on Aug 31, 2012 9:36:12 GMT 5.5
religion is faith; if logic is going to be applied, will it not become science!
|
|
|
|
Post by brindavankanchi on Sept 2, 2012 12:45:20 GMT 5.5
When Dhritharashtra is considered as the king, where is the question of Yudhishtira claiming the throne? He is not the son of the King, whereas Duryodhana is really Dhritharashtra' s own son. Here are my views. Dritharashtra was not the King. He was representing PANDU, who could not become the King in spite of being the heir to the thrown. When RAMA went to the forest, Bharata did not even for a single day aspire to be on the thrown. He was representing only RAMA. Similarly Dhritarashtra was only representing Pandu. That is the rule. Hence Yudishtra was rightfully the candidate for the throne. Again people confuse the a KING as the Owner of the Kingdom. A King is never the owner. He is the trustee of the kingdom which constitutes Praja. If he for a moment thinks he is the owner, then it will be like current political status of our country. To give another e.g. King Bharata, had 1000 sons. He found all of them unfit to rule. Did he not install a Rishi Putra to the throne and retire to forest? Therefore, it would be wrong to assume, that lineage alone decides the King. It is lineage and competence. Yudishtra on both counts was the rightful person. Read more: periva.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=dharmasastra&action=display&thread=2098#ixzz25IFunRkq |
|
|
|
Post by brindavankanchi on Sept 2, 2012 14:27:26 GMT 5.5
To Elaborate further - Of the three brothers Dhritarashtra was the seniormost, followed by Pandu and then by Vithuran.
Dhritarashtra because he was blind, was not made the KING.
Pandu became the KING.
But Pandu incurred the curse of a RISHI and passes away.
Since Yudhishtra at the time of his father's death was young, the Kingdom was handed over to RULE to Dhritarashtra.
Please note that Dhritarashtra was only a representative of King Pandu. He was not the ruler.
When Yudhishtra came of the right age, he had to vacate the throne. Therefore Yudhishtra was the rightful KING.
|
|
|
|
Post by anusham163 on Sept 9, 2012 8:08:42 GMT 5.5
Finally, everything boils down to the one quality called " FAITH". Mahaperiava has answered all these in one sentence. One as a Hindu, should believe or have COMPLETE FAITH , in our Vedas, Sastras and Sanathana Dharma. If one starts to apply logic to everything, and anything, he becomes a non-believer. How many people have applied logic to the existence of God? Have we not seen them ?
In my opinion, more than answering such so -called logical questions, we should try to develop the quality of Faith in the minds of the young .
Even great scientists like Einstien had to accept the existence of the one Great Power that created this Universe, after all their logic could not explain certain things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kanchi Periva on Sept 9, 2012 12:44:49 GMT 5.5
Absolutely true, we are glad to hear this from so many of our members.
|
|
|
|
Post by athmapremprakash on Sept 10, 2012 8:34:57 GMT 5.5
Jaya Jaya Sankara Hara Hara Sankara
thoughtful
|
|
|
|
Post by vaanand70 on Sept 25, 2012 13:32:50 GMT 5.5
1. When Dhritharashtra is considered as the king, where is the question of Yudhishtira claiming the throne? He is not the son of the King, whereas Duryodhana is really Dhritharashtra' s own son.
Dhritharashtra was considered not fit because he was blind. So his lineage lost the right to rule further to him. So Vidura advised him to forego the right to Pandu.
2. Yudhishtira is not the son of even Pandu, the king who was dead then. Yudhishtira' s father is Yamadharma, and hence not in the lineage of the Kuruvamsa. Hence, how can he have a claim over the kingdom?
Just like surrogate mothers those days surrogate fathers were also accepted as lineage. To prove this, Vyasa's biological sons were Pandu, Dhritharashtra and Vidura. Still they were called Kshatriyas and not Brahmanas because of their lineage adhering to mothers. So swapping of lineage is permitted, till now.
3. Is it Dharma for a real Guru to ask the thumb of a Sishya as Gurudakshina, with the sole idea that he should not be able ot kill his beloved sishya, Arjuna?
Asking for a thumb may not sound to Dharmic, but looking from Drona's point of view he had promised Arjuna that there will be no equal to him. Had Ekalaya said that he trained on his own, Drona would not have asked the thumb. He kept Dronas idol and trained. Breaking a promise is a very big sin. So Drona had to commit a lesser sin of asking for his thumb. Between bigger and smaller sin during Dharmasankatam times, lesser sin is preferred even now.
4. Is it Dharma for one single lady to have many husbands? She was referring to Draupadi.
It was Dharma to have up to 4 husbands. No one compelled Draupadi to do so. She said that she is doing so knowing very well what future would call her. Just to keep up the promise of pandavas of sharing everything during agnathavasam she had to adhere and set a precedence. That is why till today there are temples for her and she is still being listed in the greatest Dharmapathnis.
5. Is it Dharma to stake one's own wife, without her consent, in a gambling game?
This was answered by Bhishma to Draupadi. During those days wives were considered as a highly respected live property. Husband had absolute right to do anything with her. This may seem inappropriate now. But that was the right man had over wife then. Later a rishi called Swetaketu changed the Yuga Dharma that was prevailing then and subsequently it underwent many changes till date.
6. Is it right for Sakuni to play proxy to Duryodhana in the Chthuranga game, as per rules? Why did Yudhishtira not object to this?
Yudhishtra did object. It is like power of attorney given these days. Even during homam you may see the kartha does sankalpam and hands over the rest to the sastrigal. The same way this was done.
7. Is it dharma to disrobe a woman in front of the big audience, while her 5 husbands watch?
As told before, woman were considered as a property of man till she is hers. Yudhishtra lost her as a slave to Duryodhana. Duryodhana had complete right to do whatever he wanted to do with her. The elders and Pandavas could not object as they knew that he was right. Emotions are different. When Pandavas lost their freedom and were slaves to Duryodhana they could not do anything. Bheema, Arjuna and Nakula's vows were seen as empty shouts of slaves by Duryodhana.
8. Why did the great men like Bheema, Drona, Kripa, Vidura and others who had sympathy with the Pandavas, not come to help them in this crisis?
In a Raja Sabha, no one had authority to speak without the permission of King. He was considered supreme. Whoever spoke later breaking these rules, did out of concern, care to the King. Whenever they spoke they were silenced by Duryodhana as he was the Yuvaraja. Dhritharashtra was actually enjoying Pandavas suffering, because he had always cribbed and whined about he being deprived the right to rule. His love for his son blinded his senses beyond anything. So no one could do anything to stop him physically.
9. Why should Krishna take so much time to save Draupadi from this torture of humiliation, why could he not have avoided it in the beginning itself?
Draupadi was fighting with Dushashan with her own efforts. When she found that he was too strong to handle by herself all alone, she raised her hands and left it to God. Her pathnithvam awoke nature and Krishna and extended the saree. When Krishna was questioned about this later, in the forest about the incident, he feigned ignorance and said he knew nothing about it and said he didnt extend the saree.
Further, he has added that if he were to continue the story, he may have to tell her what all other adharmic things Lord Krishna did to help Pandavas to win over the war against the Kauravas. Like covering the sun with his Sudarshana chakra to fool Jayadradha, to indicate to Bheema that he should strike at the thigh of Duryodhana to kill him, to direct Arjuna to kill Karna when he was unarmed, to instruct Yudhishtira to tell a 'lie' about the killing of "Ashwaththaama' , to keep Shikhandi in front of Bheema so that the latter will not fight etc. etc.
Between victory of Dharma and Adharma it is dharma to do anything and everything to make Dharma win. It is like crossing yellow lines to catch a thief. Yudhishtra didnt tell a lie to win the war. He told that to demoralize Drona who was on Adharma's side. so Adharma should lose. Krishna made Shikandi stand in front of Arjuna, not for protecting Arjuna. But to protect Dharma as Bheeshma was on Adharmic side. so Adharma should lose. Striking at the thigh of Duryodhana had to be done to fulfil Bheema's vow as former showed his thigh and asked Draupadi to sit on it. To avenge a women's humiliation, any rule can be broken. so Adharma should lose. When Karna, Dushashan, Jayadrath, Duryodha, Drona, Lakshman all surrounded and killed Abhimanyu no one spoke Dharma. When all these were killed in the same fashion we are preaching Dharma. Krishna is conveying the message through these actions of his that irrespective of methods and morals, we should earn, work, live, eat and kill for the sake of Dharma. It is Dharma and Dharma only that should win. These are all lesser sins when compared with the greater sins. Similar is the case of Vaali, where Rama had to violate Dharma and kill him. He had to kill him to help sugreeva who inturn agreed Rama to retrieve Sita. This Vaali was a friend of Ravana and had harmed Sugreeva extremely. So for greater good and if the outcome would benefit the interest of people belonging to all the four varnas, if a ruler has to violate certain code of conducts he should do it and accept the sin. this is Dharma. The questions are all asked having current day scenario in mind. This is Kali Yuga where the rules have changed and all these happened in Dwapara Yuga where the situation was different.
|
|
