Balaram on Dice Game - Page 15

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Yes my point was completely about the immorality of it and I feel the law if it supported Yudhishthir was flawed here. As I said in another thread, the main problem with Yudhishthir is that he is a product of the system. He is not a change, he is absolutely a supporter of the flawed system of the Vedic law. This is where my problem is.

However, I did read FlauntPessimism and Nora's arguments on the law and they do have a point. I agree with this- if Yudhishthir was not a criminal legally then well DDSK gets a clean sheet as well, especially Shakuni had no crime at all because I don't buy that his dice was magical.

And absolutely nothing to counter Panchali's presence of mind in this part. She did a great job

See this is where the beauty of her argument comes into play.

1. She tries the dharma argument, but Bheeshma completely dismisses it by saying it was not immoral to stake her.

2. She argues she isn't Yudhishtira's wife after he lsot himself

3. She argues she is Kuru daughter-in-law.

If the Kauaravs agreed with #2, then she wasn't a slave. If they disagreed, they commit a crime by assaulting their sister-in-law

If the Kauravas agreed with #3, then they commit a crime as she was their sister-in-law. If they disagreed, then Yudhishtira had no right to stake her.

She was basically arguing opposing things and tying them in knots.

The morality of what Yudhishtira did ceases to matter at this point as Bheeshma already said it was perfectly moral. The criminality of Yudhishtira and/or Kauravas is the only thing left to argue as what matters at the moment is getting free. She couldn't argue Yudhishtira is a criminal because that would enable the enemy. Hence, her accusation of cheating. Her later legal argument, combined with Suyodhana's stupidity, enables Arjuna to stand up and say something in support.

As she has no legal support or family support to remove Yudhishtira, that 80% success is the best she could achieve.

With re: losses in war. I'm sure she knew the chances of dying when they went into war, and she still wanted it.

If the comment is with re: cosmic justice, I agree. But that's life. **it happens.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Haha yes, I just wanted to focus that it's important we remember Yudhishthir is indeed at fault if not by law then by morality. Now my question is if Yudhishthir is not a legal criminal then how is DDSK wrong here?

There's a part in StarB which says the same as HearMeRoar did though. Krishna explains how flawed the law is with so many loopholes that can allow crimes and inhuman acts. So we must blame the flawed laws which allow such things. However if someone is a good person, they will not do such immoral things. But yes I do understand nobody here is supporting Yudhishthir

About Karna: he is an extremely overrated tragix hero and an extremely UNDERRATED antagonist. Duryodhan takes away the cake of being the antagonist. Even Dhritarashtra and SHAKUNI gets more footage as the antagonists while nobody considers Karna as one. This is injustice to Karna. 😭

Duryodhan was definitely the main antagonist, Karna can not take away this credit from him, but Karna is a very big competition to him, to reduce his antagonist nature, people make him irrelevant to the story although he was way too important from Mahabharata point of view

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Krishna's only aim was Panchali's revenge? His blood did ascend to the throne and I do feel his main aim was to make sure this happens. Besides if he wanted to avenge Panchali why not take up weapons?

I meant primary aim, not only aim. He made it very clear during the tirade at Karna. There were 4 things he mentioned as per CE. 2 of them had to do with Panchali. The other two with the empire.

Also, there are instances in epic where Krishna specifically begged to pick up weapons, and Yudhishtira refused to let him.

If you look at it from human angle, the Yadav primacy theory is illogical.

1. Krishna would have had to foresee Abhimanyu being born first. Since Panchali's wedding happened first, how?

2. He would have had to know Abhimanyu would be a boy.

3. He would have had to know Yudhishtira and Panchali would agree to install Abhimanyu as heir

4. He would have had to know dice hall would happen

5. He would have had to know Abhimanyu's child would be a boy.

6. He would have had to know all upapandavas would die.

7. He slaughtered most of the Yadavas himself

_______________________

Dhirshtadyumna outright states he was doing it for Panchali. Considering what other brothers in MBh were like, Panchali lucked out with him.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

See this is where the beauty of her argument comes into play.

1. She tries the dharma argument, but Bheeshma completely dismisses it by saying it was not immoral to stake her.

2. She argues she isn't Yudhishtira's wife after he lsot himself

3. She argues she is Kuru daughter-in-law.

If the Kauaravs agreed with #2, then she wasn't a slave. If they disagreed, they commit a crime by assaulting their sister-in-law

If the Kauravas agreed with #3, then they commit a crime as she was their sister-in-law. If they disagreed, then Yudhishtira had no right to stake her.

She was basically arguing opposing things and tying them in knots.

The morality of what Yudhishtira did ceases to matter at this point as Bheeshma already said it was perfectly moral. The criminality of Yudhishtira and/or Kauravas is the only thing left to argue as what matters at the moment is getting free. She couldn't argue Yudhishtira is a criminal because that would enable the enemy. Hence, her accusation of cheating. Her later legal argument, combined with Suyodhana's stupidity, enables Arjuna to stand up and say something in support.

As she has no legal support or family support to remove Yudhishtira, that 80% success is the best she could achieve.

With re: losses in war. I'm sure she knew the chances of dying when they went into war, and she still wanted it.

If the comment is with re: cosmic justice, I agree. But that's life. **it happens.

Bheeshma's words are not the end of it. He maybe the partiach but he was NOT the king, I do not think only him saying it was moral makes it a fact. I still refuse to believe that. Bhishma too probably didn't want to enable the enemy. If he would say Yudhishthir is immoral that would give Duryodhan the green card of it. As you said, at this stage blaming Yudhishthir would be a dumb move as that would empower DDSK.

And the cheating thing doesn't count IMO because I find that a foolish logic. That cannot be proven.

Also, if Yudhishthir has LOST draupadi, it does make them their slave and legally Duryodhan had right over her. That that makes Duryodhan a non criminal legally as well.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Duryodhan was definitely the main antagonist, Karna can not take away this credit from him, but Karna is a very big competition to him, to reduce his antagonist nature, people make him irrelevant to the story although he was way too important from Mahabharata point of view

Karna was important and he was at par with Duryodhan. He deserves the attention serials give to Shakuni who did nothing much apart from the dice game.

Karna is 2nd most important antagonist IMO.

Originally posted by: naq5

Arjuna was Savage. Actually he blamed yudi for the kauravas plight too😈 for them being destroyed because he choose to gamble. So many people from all kingdoms dying. Did this frustration stem from how many people he had to kill in battle. He was a reluctant fighter after all. Looks like he never wanted the war.

And yudi is such a emotional blackmailer. i wonder how he was fit to be a king with such suicidal blackmailing tendencies

i think more than Bhima Arjun would have been a better bet for krishna. Bhima was very impulsive. Though reluctant to fight Arjun at least wanted peace which is good and Krishna could have easily controlled him & made him do what he wanted to.

And how come other than yudi no one had the right to the throne. the king was choosen on talent right. yudi was contender from pandavas because the younger brothers dint want to contest him & choose him. Krishna & draupadi could have let yudi just commit suicide and made one of the brothers the king😈.

Regarding the throne going to dury after yudi. If dury decided to return indraprastha then the throne would go to someone from pandavas . And if dury was supposed to be killed in war then the throne again would belong to the pandavas. yudishthir was not that necessary. unless they all still loved him inspite of everything and dint want to loose him to suicide

Yeah, This is the only place where I actually like Arjuna 😅😅

He wasn't mad at Yudhishtira, He was asked by Krishna to speak the truth about Yudhishtira, This gave me a whole new perspective on war too, he thought they are killing thousands of people for mistake of one man

"I do not derive any pleasure from the thought of thy restoration to sovereignty, since thou art addicted to the evil practice of gambling"

I would conclude this with words on Yudhishtira from the man who never lied -

Yudhishtira - "'I am the worst of men, and the exterminator of my race. I am a wretch. I am addicted to wicked courses. I am of foolish understanding. I am idle and a coward. I am an insulter of the old. I am cruel. What wouldst thou gain by always being obedient to a cruel person like me? A wretch that I am, I shall this very day retire into the woods. Live you happily without me."

Pandavas + Draupadi *Nodding to each other*- Let's... AND They live happily ever after

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Bheeshma's words are not the end of it. He maybe the partiach but he was NOT the king, I do not think only him saying it was moral makes it a fact. I still refuse to believe that. Bhishma too probably didn't want to enable the enemy. If he would say Yudhishthir is immoral that would give Duryodhan the green card of it. As you said, at this stage blaming Yudhishthir would be a dumb move as that would empower DDSK.

And the cheating thing doesn't count IMO because I find that a foolish logic. That cannot be proven.

Also, if Yudhishthir has LOST draupadi, it does make them their slave and legally Duryodhan had right over her. That that makes Duryodhan a non criminal legally as well.

I don't think any one is getting my point.😒

The immorality of it was a lost argument which she first tried.

Who is criminal and who is not didn't matter. What mattered is they were unable to decide because either way would have meant she won. if Yudhishtira did have the right to stake her, as his wife, she was still their sister-in-law. If he didn't, she was free.

None of it meant she knew she would succeed. No strategy is foolproof. Vastraharan and Suyodhana's dumb offer helped. But he wouldn't have blurted out the offer if she hadn't made the argument in the first place.

Re: Shakuni. It was a strategic move because later, it would help them establish legitimacy.

Will agree to disagree re: Bheeshma, but I will never consider someone who actively argued (as opposed staying dumbly silent) that Panchali was legally a sex slave in any way, shape, or form to be correct or moral or just.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

I would conclude this with words on Yudhishtira from the man who never lied -

Yudhishtira - "'I am the worst of men, and the exterminator of my race. I am a wretch. I am addicted to wicked courses. I am of foolish understanding. I am idle and a coward. I am an insulter of the old. I am cruel. What wouldst thou gain by always being obedient to a cruel person like me? A wretch that I am, I shall this very day retire into the woods. Live you happily without me."

Pandavas + Draupadi *Nodding to each other*- Let's... AND They live happily ever after

😆Would have loved it.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I meant primary aim, not only aim. He made it very clear during the tirade at Karna. There were 4 things he mentioned as per CE. 2 of them had to do with Panchali. The other two with the empire.

Also, there are instances in epic where Krishna specifically begged to pick up weapons, and Yudhishtira refused to let him.

If you look at it from human angle, the Yadav primacy theory is illogical.

1. Krishna would have had to foresee Abhimanyu being born first. Since Panchali's wedding happened first, how?

2. He would have had to know Abhimanyu would be a boy.

3. He would have had to know Yudhishtira and Panchali would agree to install Abhimanyu as heir

4. He would have had to know dice hall would happen

5. He would have had to know Abhimanyu's child would be a boy.

6. He would have had to know all upapandavas would die.

7. He slaughtered most of the Yadavas himself

_______________________

Dhirshtadyumna outright states he was doing it for Panchali. Considering what other brothers in MBh were like, Panchali lucked out with him.

See Panchali was his best friend, he obviously did feel when she got assaulted and it was important that her assault is avenged. But I do not think Krishna engaged in the war mainly because of this reason. This is not a small reason at all, but well Yudhishthir could be killed too. If you completely remove divine elements, then Bhishma or Drona could imprison Yudhishthir. The war's effect was unknown to him too then.

The war was important because it was needed for removing Duryodhan who had committed a no of crimes (even leaving out dice game). Yudhishthir may be a flawed human being and I do believe he was, but if he was Vidur's son and Vidur eldest I do believe he had main claim to the throne. He was elder to Duryodhan too.

Krishna is an enigmatic individual. I do not believe he was GOD or Vishnu's avatar. But I do believe he was above mere mortal beings. He had a greater aim than his personal avenging for his bestie's assault.

I also don't completely discard what he said about establishing of Dharma. He did explain clearly what his purpose was. In the eyes of LAW, as per your views too, Yudhishthir was better than Duryodhan. It's not impossible to believe Krishna wanted the correct man to ascend the throne.