Things which made you uncomfortable in Mahabharata - Page 3

Bheeshma wasn't simply silent in dice hall. He actively argued that Panchali WAS a slave. He insisted Shakuni did not cheat. The only time he was silent was when Karna ordered the assault on her. Bheeshma was silent when Karna ordered her to be taken to slave quarters to "serve" her masters.

His end WAS unfair by the glorification he got from one and all on his death bed.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Bheeshma wasn't simply silent in dice hall. He actively argued that Panchali WAS a slave. He insisted Shakuni did not cheat. The only time he was silent was when Karna ordered the assault on her. Bheeshma was silent when Karna ordered her to be taken to slave quarters to "serve" her masters.

His end WAS unfair by the glorification he got from one and all on his death bed.

How can we be sure that Shakuni cheated? No one said that he cheated before Panchali (who wasn't even there in the hall during the game) stated that he did. Bheeshm was watching the game and he could have realised that Shakuni didn't cheat I don't think saying the truth is wrong or an punishable offense.

About the first point, even Vidur didn't say that Panchali wasn't a slave. Even Harischandra had donated his wife after having had sold himself, so it's pretty clear that even after enslavement, the person has right on his wife. He was just stating what the rule was. Lying doesn't make a person better.

He did stay quiet at the situation when the orders being given were wrong

I don't think Bheeshm has much blame here

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

How can we be sure that Shakuni cheated? No one said that he cheated before Panchali (who wasn't even there in the hall during the game) stated that he did. Bheeshm was watching the game and he could have realised that Shakuni didn't cheat I don't think saying the truth is wrong or an punishable offense.

About the first point, even Vidur didn't say that Panchali wasn't a slave. Even Harischandra had donated his wife after having had sold himself, so it's pretty clear that even after enslavement, the person has right on his wife. He was just stating what the rule was. Lying doesn't make a person better.

He did stay quiet at the situation when the orders being given were wrong

I don't think Bheeshm has much blame here

Whether or not Shakuni cheated is immaterial.

If the point was to minimize harm, Bheeshma could've taken her lead and said Shakuni did cheat. As an old and experienced leader, he would've or should've known enough to weight in balance the accusation of Shakuni cheating vs making his own granddaughter-in-law a sex slave for the family.

Same for insisting she was a slave.

And yes, it was Bheeshma's DUTY as a kshatriya to make sure justice happened. Panchali threw them 2 very good reasons to hold up to the Kauravas, and Bheeshma didn't take it. Which leaves us with 2 possibilities. 1) He was not shrewd enough to pick on the hints or 2) He was tacitly supporting the Kaurava side.

AND his insistence she was a slave was AFTER the assault which means there was no excuse of him not realizing what was in store for her.

If his excuse was having vapors at the idea of a falsehood against criminals who'd ALREADY committed grave injustice, then heck, yeah. He was at fault. Very much so. They were kings. They made rules.

Proof? Bheeshma himself gave the above as reasoning:

"Hearing these words, Bhishma answered, I have already said, O blessed

p. 136

one that the course of morality is subtle. Even the illustrious wise in this world fail to understand it always. What in this world a strong man calls morality is regarded as such by others, however otherwise it may really be; but what a weak man calls morality is scarcely regarded as such even if it be the highest morality.

________________________

ie, dharma/rules is whatever the winner says it is.

No number of hints from Panchali would be enough for him to put a stop to a crime. No, not because he didn't want to break rules. As he says, the powerful made rules. Losers had to live by them.

________________________

Vikarna outright said she was not won. Vidura gave demanded the court answer her question.

Originally posted by: Eloquent

I'm not talking of his oath at all. That part is somehow the very thing wrong with his life overall (linked to his silence in Dyut Sabha also).

Merely talking about how he barges in a swayamvar & kidnaps the three princesses without consent and thus is, rightly so, the first cause of Amba's miserable life henceforth.

I don't think his oath should be held against him. He didn't know all successors of Shantanu would be incapable. He wasn't aware that his vow will have such repercussions. His intent was not bad. He let go of the throne completely, how many can do that? Even Yudhishthir the epitome of righteousness could not.

And as I said, I won't justify forced abduction of any lady, but rakshasha vivaha was an accepted form of marriage back then. And we see many men taking part in it (again that doesn't mean it was right), but it was an accepted practice in that society.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Whether or not Shakuni cheated is immaterial.

If the point was to minimize harm, Bheeshma could've taken her lead and said Shakuni did cheat. As an old and experienced leader, he would've or should've known enough to weight in balance the accusation of Shakuni cheating vs making his own granddaughter-in-law a sex slave for the family.

Same for insisting she was a slave.

And yes, it was Bheeshma's DUTY as a kshatriya to make sure justice happened. Panchali threw them 2 very good reasons to hold up to the Kauravas, and Bheeshma didn't take it. Which leaves us with 2 possibilities. 1) He was not shrewd enough to pick on the hints or 2) He was tacitly supporting the Kaurava side.

AND his insistence she was a slave was AFTER the assault which means there was no excuse of him not realizing what was in store for her.

If his excuse was having vapors at the idea of a falsehood against criminals who'd ALREADY committed grave injustice, then heck, yeah. He was at fault. Very much so. They were kings. They made rules.

Proof? Bheeshma himself gave the above as reasoning:

"Hearing these words, Bhishma answered, I have already said, O blessed

p. 136

one that the course of morality is subtle. Even the illustrious wise in this world fail to understand it always. What in this world a strong man calls morality is regarded as such by others, however otherwise it may really be; but what a weak man calls morality is scarcely regarded as such even if it be the highest morality.

________________________

ie, dharma/rules is whatever the winner says it is.

No number of hints from Panchali would be enough for him to put a stop to a crime. No, not because he didn't want to break rules. As he says, the powerful made rules. Losers had to live by them.

________________________

Vikarna outright said she was not won. Vidura gave demanded the court answer her question.

This is not today's day and age. Here, lying was not considered as simple but an immoral act as per my knowledge. I still don't get how Bheeshma can say Shakuni cheated without any concrete evidence? And that would be wrong, I myself would not have accepted if someone say I cheated. There's no proof he used unfair means. I don't think saying why didn't he lie and falsely accuse Shakuni a right way to deal with it.

Also, saying Shakuni cheated here is letting Yudhishthir go and letting him be innocent because oh well he was cheated, that makes hima VICTIM. Which he was NOT. Yudhishthir lost everything because of his own greed and addiction, and Bhishma would let him go by saying no Shakuni cheated is plain unfair.

About what he said about morality, how do you know the tone was of justification? To me the tone clearly laments about the fact that morality is written by the strong men. He is actually lamenting it.

Also, NO ONE did anything in dice hall. Dhritarashtra is the King, why is he not being blamed? How is only Bheeshma's act being picked here?

Originally posted by: Eloquent

I had no idea of this! I knew he killed Vrishsena but not like this. Can u please give the quote? I want to read.

I am unable to copy paste with mobile.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08085.htm

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I am unable to copy paste with mobile.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08085.htm

With eyes red in wrath, that hero capable of slaying Yama himself if the latter fought with him, then laughed terribly and said unto Karna and all the other Kaurava heroes headed by Duryodhana and Drona's son, these words, "Today, O Karna, in thy very sight in this battle, I will despatch the fierce Vrishasena unto Yama's abode with my keen arrows! People say that all of you, united together, slew my son, endued with great activity, in my absence, and while he was alone and unsupported on his car. I, however, will slay thy son in the very sight of you all. Let all the Kaurava car-warriors protect him. I will slay the fierce Vrishasena. After that, I will slay thee, O fool, even I, Arjuna, in the midst of battle! Today I will, in battle, slay thee that art the root of this quarrel and that hast become so proud in consequence of Duryodhana's patronage. Putting forth my strength, I will certainly slay thee in this battle, and Bhimasena will slay this Duryodhana, this wretch among men, through whose evil policy this quarrel born of dice hath arisen." Having said these words, Arjuna rubbed the string of his bow and took aim at Vrishasena in that battle, and sped, O king, a number of shafts for the slaughter of Karna's son. The diadem-decked Arjuna then, fearlessly and with great force, pierced Vrishasena with ten shafts in all his vital limbs. With four fierce razor-headed arrows he cut off Vrishasena's bow and two arms and head. Struck with Partha's shafts, the son of Karna, deprived of arms and head, fell down on the earth from his car, like a gigantic shala adorned with flowers falling down from a mountain summit.

Wasn't it common in battles? Abhimanyu's death might have prompted him to attack Vrishasena like that but it was fair. It may appear wrong on a moral scale though.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

With eyes red in wrath, that hero capable of slaying Yama himself if the latter fought with him, then laughed terribly and said unto Karna and all the other Kaurava heroes headed by Duryodhana and Drona's son, these words, "Today, O Karna, in thy very sight in this battle, I will despatch the fierce Vrishasena unto Yama's abode with my keen arrows! People say that all of you, united together, slew my son, endued with great activity, in my absence, and while he was alone and unsupported on his car. I, however, will slay thy son in the very sight of you all. Let all the Kaurava car-warriors protect him. I will slay the fierce Vrishasena. After that, I will slay thee, O fool, even I, Arjuna, in the midst of battle! Today I will, in battle, slay thee that art the root of this quarrel and that hast become so proud in consequence of Duryodhana's patronage. Putting forth my strength, I will certainly slay thee in this battle, and Bhimasena will slay this Duryodhana, this wretch among men, through whose evil policy this quarrel born of dice hath arisen." Having said these words, Arjuna rubbed the string of his bow and took aim at Vrishasena in that battle, and sped, O king, a number of shafts for the slaughter of Karna's son. The diadem-decked Arjuna then, fearlessly and with great force, pierced Vrishasena with ten shafts in all his vital limbs. With four fierce razor-headed arrows he cut off Vrishasena's bow and two arms and head. Struck with Partha's shafts, the son of Karna, deprived of arms and head, fell down on the earth from his car, like a gigantic shala adorned with flowers falling down from a mountain summit.

Wasn't it common in battles? Abhimanyu's death might have prompted him to attack Vrishasena like that but it was fair. It may appear wrong on a moral scale though.

I am not saying it was unfair as per the war rules, but mutilation of human removing hands and legs before killing is something very disturbing for me.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Few things make me uncomfortable are-

1.As a woman, a man who stakes his wife being considered a good king bothers me. A man who has such opinion of women (naval exposed, stop being an actress, dividing her to enjoy her etc) also bothers me.

2. Draupadi's "division" (I have no issues with polyandry. I am all for it in fact, but the girl should take the decision herself like men do, and choose her husbands. Not be married off to 5 brothers. She may have been happy but she was not asked, just like in Subhadra haran, there are chances she was happy but she wasn't asked.)

3. Khandavdahan - plain genocide

4. Bheem's poisoning as children.

5. Subhadra haran

6. Cheer haran of course and Karna's comments. I would really not mind had he told these things to Arjun, why Draupadi? She never harmed him.

7. Abhimanyu Vadh, Ghatothkach Vadh and Upapandavas massacre

8. Kunti's attitude towards Karna- She doesn't seem keen on protecting her son.

9. Kavach Kundal - I consider this unfair. Though I have argued in this forum it was a trade deal, which it was, it is an unfair one. It's so as KK did give Karna a special benefit or else Indra would not bother to ask for it. Why consider it a threat if it is nothing at all. Secondly, giving away a lifetime protection and getting a one time use weapon doesn't seem fair to me.

10. Bhishma's death- plain unfair. Bhishma didn't even do anything unfair like Drona or Karna did (ie in war). It was by unfair means IMO.

Moreover, nobody in the whole epic got the kind of glorious demise he received.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

You mean his elimination on day 10. I feel it was fair and didn't involve deceit. Shikhandi was used on his own suggestion and the impact was bare minimum.

Moreover, nobody in the whole epic got the kind of glorious demise he received.

Just because he suggested doesn't mean using a human as a shield on whom one will not attack and then attacking when he isn't attacking on you doesn't become correct. At least I think so