Balaram on Dice Game - Page 18

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

To return Indraprastha would mean Suyodhana admits it wasn't his. The whole point Panchali makes is criminals WHO DO NOT REPENT need punishment. If Kauarvas repent, what is the point of war?

This is one of the reasons, I don't use the word revenge, avenge, vengeance in connection with Panchali. She is quite prepared to forgive is they repent. What kind of revenge is that?😆

Also, take a look at how Krishna presents the offer. He insults the Kauravas left and right first.

Not saying about the Shanti Parva that definitely was an instigation to fight and the war, I mean had they agreed to return Indraprasth at the end of 13 years

That might have been an acceptance that Indraprasth didn't belong to him, but definitely not a repentance to his crimes in the dice hall and also elsewhere

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

^^^ Still he didn't completely abandon Kauravas. Kritvarma and Narayani Sena was given to Duryodhan who was also his Samdhi.

If at all somehow Duryodhan had won the war, he still would have been close to the winning side

Yes absolutely. Also, Isn't Duryodhan his inlaw? Samba- Lakshmana?

So he had relationships on both sides. It would be win win on both aides.

My point is

1. He was not in it for property rights. Agreed.

2. He was in it for Panchali mainly, no, I disagree. - Reasons stated.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

That was the story of Kalidasa. Famous folklore.

His wife would have crossed the age by then, I doubt he could have got a child by Niyog either. Either he would have to adopt a kid which I doubt he would have (would he have adopted Karna's last alive son Vrishketu? Not mentioned in Vaishampayan Mahabharata but referenced in Jaimini parts) or Parikshit would have been the only real option

He could have married a younger woman, the way he hated Pandavas, I don't think he would have settled for Parikshit, or that story where he berates Ass for killing Upapandavas is true and he didn't hold grudges against next gen Pandavas

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Yes absolutely. Also, Isn't Duryodhan his inlaw? Samba- Lakshmana?

So he had relationships on both sides. It would be win win on both aides.

My point is

1. He was not in it for property rights. Agreed.

2. He was in it for Panchali mainly, no, I disagree. - Reasons stated.

Krushna's son abducted Duryodhana's daughter, Now I smell laddoos from both sides

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

But all of this post is with re: events prior to dice hall. None of it was he reason for Kurkushetra. If dharma is removed, there was no political reason for Krishna to be in Kurukshetra. His son was married to Suyodhana's daughter. Balram was friendly with Suyodhana. Yadavas were secure from enemies.

The reason for Krishna to be involved in that war was to establish dharma as he himself says. None of the Kaurava adharm prior dice hall prompted him to go war against them. His support for war happened only after dice hall. He gives his reasons to Karna.

CE, Volume 7, Chapter 1217 (67)

SChapter 1217(67)anjaya said, “Vasudeva was stationed on his chariot. He said, ‘O Radheya! It is fortunate that youremember dharma. Quite often, when they are immersed in hardships, inferior ones censure destiny,but not their evil deeds. O Karna! When you, Suyodhana, Duhshasana and Shakuni Soubala broughtDroupadi to the assembly hall in a single garment, did dharma not show itself to you? When, in theassembly hall, Yudhishthira, who was not skilled at dice, was defeated by Shakuni, who was skilled atdice, where did dharma go then? O Karna! During her season, Krishna798 was under Duhshasana’ssubjugation in the assembly hall and you laughed at her. Where did dharma go then? O Karna!Resorting to the king of Gandhara and coveting the kingdom, you challenged the Pandavas.799Where did dharma go then?’ When Vasudeva addressed Radheya in this way, Pandava Dhananjayaremembered all this and was overcome by great rage. Energetic flames of anger seemed to issue outfrom all the pores on his body and it was extraordinary.‘ “On seeing this, Karna again invoked brahmastra against Dhananjaya. He sho

I don't think I am making my point well.

Krishna didn't go for war. Yudhishthir did. Krishna got help from Pandavas (who support Yudhishthir) in defeating Jarasandha, his enemy. So he supported that side. Had Duryodhan won, he would still be close to the winning side as he didn't "fight" against the Kauravas.

Had there been no game of dice, the property dispute would still remain. Yes, you are saying no war would occur as the division would settle it, I get it. But if Yudhishthir would go for war, as an ally he would help him.

You said two things from what i gather -

1. Krishna's aim was not property rights/power- Agreed. He was working for establishment of dharma, agreed. Dharma doesn't only lie in Panchali's justice, alot of other wrongs were done by both sides. Duryodhan's only crime was not dice hall.

2. His main aim was Panchali- this is what I am countering and disagreeing with.

I am stating why Krishna sided with the Pandavas, he went to the war because YBANS decided to go for it. He was the one who decided to remain weaponless, and he gave away his Narayani Sena to Duryodhan. He had his aims clear, on both sides he had something to gain. I cannot believe he was involved because of his friend.

Re: Your citation just shows Krishna pointing out KARNA'S main wrongdoing. And yes, his contribution in the dice hall is major. How does this prove he was fighting for Panchali. He only pointed out to Karna that since he is reminding Arjun of "dharma" where was it when he asked Draupadi to be disrobed. Karna's biggest adharma was that. He pointed it out. Also, I have seen you point out he didn't bring up Abhi's death. Well Abhi's bow was broken by Karn in a fair fight. He is not as much to be blamed for his death as he is in dice hall where he was not under anyone's command- he did all of it unprovoked in his own will.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Krushna's son abducted Duryodhana's daughter, Now I smell laddoos from both sides

Exactly. If Duryodhan won, he could not even capture Krishna as a war prisoner because well he didn't fight. If Yudhishthir won, they considered him God. One side was his cousins. Another side his son's inlaws.

If I remove divinity completely, his only reason for being involved was himself and his own benefits.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I don't think I am making my point well.

Krishna didn't go for war. Yudhishthir did. Krishna got help from Pandavas (who support Yudhishthir) in defeating Jarasandha, his enemy. So he supported that side. Had Duryodhan won, he would still be close to the winning side as he didn't "fight" against the Kauravas.

Had there been no game of dice, the property dispute would still remain. Yes, you are saying no war would occur as the division would settle it, I get it. But if Yudhishthir would go for war, as an ally he would help him.

You said two things from what i gather -

1. Krishna's aim was not property rights/power- Agreed. He was working for establishment of dharma, agreed. Dharma doesn't only lie in Panchali's justice, alot of other wrongs were done by both sides. Duryodhan's only crime was not dice hall.

2. His main aim was Panchali- this is what I am countering and disagreeing with.

I am stating why Krishna sided with the Pandavas, he went to the war because YBANS decided to go for it. He was the one who decided to remain weaponless, and he gave away his Narayani Sena to Duryodhan. He had his aims clear, on both sides he had something to gain. I cannot believe he was involved because of his friend.

@Bold. The problem with that statement is none of the prior adharms moved Krishna enough to go to war. The one adharm which happened in between was the assault.

I'm not saying he did it for revenge. Why would he when Panchali herself is very clear she wants war IF the criminals didn't repent.

He wasn't doing it for property or for political reasons at that point because he didn't have any. He was doing it for dharma. I'm saying the assault on her was the last straw on the camel's back for Krishna.

The Pandavas weren't. Dhrishtadyumna bluntly states he was in it for personal reasons.

Now, Krishna's words do leave room for interpretation. Rather, his actions do. So who knows which interp is right? Or both of us could be massively wrong, and he wanted Karna as emperor all along.😆

Krishna pleading with Yudhishtira to let him fight.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06108.htm

From the good understanding that exists between us, do thou set me also to this task. Even I, O son of Pandu, will fight with Bhishma. Directed by thee, O great king, what is there that I may not do in great battle. Challenging that bull among men, viz., Bhishma, I will slay him in battle, in the very sight of the Dhartarashtras, if Phalguni doth not wish to slay him. If, O son of Pandu, thou seest victory to be certain on the slaughter of the heroic Bhishma, even, I, on a single car, will slay that aged grandsire of the Kurus. Behold, O king, my prowess, equal to that of the great Indra in battle. I will overthrow from his car that warrior who always shooteth mighty weapons. He that is an enemy of the sons of Pandu, without doubt, is my enemy also. They, that are yours, are mine, and so they, that are mine, are yours. Thy brother (Arjuna) is my friend, relative, and disciple. I will, O king, cut off my own flesh and give it away for the sake of Arjuna. And this tiger among men also can lay down his life for my sake. O sire, even this is our understanding, viz., that we will protect each other. Therefore, command me, O king, in what way I am to fight. Formerly, at Upaplavya, Partha had, in the presence of many persons, vowed, saying, 'I will slay the son of Ganga.' These words of the intelligent Partha should be observed (in practice). Indeed, if Partha requests me without doubt I will fulfill that vow. Or, let it be the task of Phalguni himself in battle. It is not heavy for him. He will slay Bhishma, that subjugator of hostile cities. If excited in battle, Partha can achieve feats that are incapable of being achieved by others. Arjuna can slay in battle the very gods exerting themselves actively, along with the Daityas and the Danavas. What need be said of Bhishma, therefore, O king? Endued with great energy, Bhishma, the son of Santanu, is now of perverted judgment, of intelligence decayed, and of little sense, without doubt, he knoweth not what he should do.'

"Hearing these words of Krishna, Yudhishthira said, 'It is even so, O thou of mighty arms, even as thou sayest, O thou of Madhu's race. All these together are not competent to bear thy force. I am sure of always having whatever I desire, when, O tiger among men, I have thyself staying on my side. O foremost of victorious persons, I would conquer the very gods with Indra at their head, when, O Govinda, I have thee for my protector. What need I say, therefore, of Bhishma, though he is a mighty car-warrior? But, O Krishna, I dare not, for my own glorification, falsify thy words.

__________________________

Krishna was quite prepared to give up any vow and fight. Yudhishtira refused to let him.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

@Bold. The problem with that statement is none of the prior adharms moved Krishna enough to go to war. The one adharm which happened in between was the assault.

I'm not saying he did it for revenge. Why would he when Panchali herself is very clear she wants war IF the criminals didn't repent.

He wasn't doing it for property or for political reasons at that point because he didn't have any. He was doing it for dharma. I'm saying the assault on her was the last straw on the camel's back for Krishna.

The Pandavas weren't. Dhrishtadyumna bluntly states he was in it for personal reasons.

Now, Krishna's words do leave room for interpretation. Rather, his actions do. So who knows which interp is right? Or both of us could be massively wrong, and he wanted Karna as emperor all along.😆

I get what you mean, but even without the dice hall, Duryodhan did represent everything wrong- blind hatred, attempt to murder, sexual harassment, jealousy, greed etc etc.

Krishna was fighting so that he does not get the throne and the rightful heir (as per him) ascends the throne. Now we can debate who was the right choice but Krishna made his.

If you're saying Draupadi's vastraharan was the last move aka the Hitler's occupation of the Danzig corridor - that is "immediate cause of war", I accept that.

I felt you said Krishna was in the war because of what happened to Panchali (not as revenge, but for justice) - that's what I disagreed with.

I believe Krishna had enough reasons of own benefit involved, and he also was fighting for dharma. He wasn't doing a favour to his friend is all I meant.

Lastly, I really do hope the last part is in jest, that will remove all the love I have for Keshav. 🤣

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Krishna pleading with Yudhishtira to let him fight.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06108.htm

From the good understanding that exists between us, do thou set me also to this task. Even I, O son of Pandu, will fight with Bhishma. Directed by thee, O great king, what is there that I may not do in great battle. Challenging that bull among men, viz., Bhishma, I will slay him in battle, in the very sight of the Dhartarashtras, if Phalguni doth not wish to slay him. If, O son of Pandu, thou seest victory to be certain on the slaughter of the heroic Bhishma, even, I, on a single car, will slay that aged grandsire of the Kurus. Behold, O king, my prowess, equal to that of the great Indra in battle. I will overthrow from his car that warrior who always shooteth mighty weapons. He that is an enemy of the sons of Pandu, without doubt, is my enemy also. They, that are yours, are mine, and so they, that are mine, are yours. Thy brother (Arjuna) is my friend, relative, and disciple. I will, O king, cut off my own flesh and give it away for the sake of Arjuna. And this tiger among men also can lay down his life for my sake. O sire, even this is our understanding, viz., that we will protect each other. Therefore, command me, O king, in what way I am to fight. Formerly, at Upaplavya, Partha had, in the presence of many persons, vowed, saying, 'I will slay the son of Ganga.' These words of the intelligent Partha should be observed (in practice). Indeed, if Partha requests me without doubt I will fulfill that vow. Or, let it be the task of Phalguni himself in battle. It is not heavy for him. He will slay Bhishma, that subjugator of hostile cities. If excited in battle, Partha can achieve feats that are incapable of being achieved by others. Arjuna can slay in battle the very gods exerting themselves actively, along with the Daityas and the Danavas. What need be said of Bhishma, therefore, O king? Endued with great energy, Bhishma, the son of Santanu, is now of perverted judgment, of intelligence decayed, and of little sense, without doubt, he knoweth not what he should do.'

"Hearing these words of Krishna, Yudhishthira said, 'It is even so, O thou of mighty arms, even as thou sayest, O thou of Madhu's race. All these together are not competent to bear thy force. I am sure of always having whatever I desire, when, O tiger among men, I have thyself staying on my side. O foremost of victorious persons, I would conquer the very gods with Indra at their head, when, O Govinda, I have thee for my protector. What need I say, therefore, of Bhishma, though he is a mighty car-warrior? But, O Krishna, I dare not, for my own glorification, falsify thy words.

__________________________

Krishna was quite prepared to give up any vow and fight. Yudhishtira refused to let him.

I do not think he was actually going to fight. Arjun was doing almost nothing in the war, Bhishma's removal was important. He knew Yudhishthir would never let him break his vow, hence he used this to provoke Arjun and Yudhishthir to DO SOMETHING. Also, he was human, I am sure he can lose aim sometimes out of anger. I don't think he was actually willing to fight.

The citation itself stresses on if ARJUN DOESN'T DO IT... He knew Arjun was hesitating. He was getting impatient. He was provoking Arjun.