The Great? - Page 4

Thanks for your post agin Garima, interesting. And you have raised some god points. Sharing just my thoughts on this if it helps:

Any act needs to be looked along with the intent. MP, the great, nobility personified killed many enemy soldiers. If someone is going to ask if he was justified in doing this, pat would come our reply, ofcourse yes! Why so? As the intent was pure and towards the protection of his motherland and its values. And hence, he raises high in our view. Whereas Alexander or anyone similar might not raise so in front of some of our eyes as we have question regarding the intent.

Now coming to Bhishma Pitamah, he had so many greatness around him. He was an unparalleled warrior of his time, practitioner of truth, great loyalist etc. But why all remember him even today is for his the price he paid to keep his word. Though a Kshatriya who can marry many women, he remained a true Brahmachari till his end - just because he gave a word not to marry. And he did not even desire any bit the throne, which again he promised not to ascend. And we know well that both these promises were just because he wanted his father to be happy - meaning, his father marries the woman he has fallen for and who unhesitatingly placed a condition that her son should rule and who did not stop with that - she also made sure that anyone from Bhishma's lineage ascend throne. And importantly, these vachans were not asked by his father or the to-be mother. But he chose to give them both as only that could give his father the peace by uniting with is lady love. This is unparalleled and unheard of - we have been reading family politics of many empires and the resultant killing of the family members, such is the greed for throne and power. But Bhishma was able to shed also those desires and emotions, just for his father's sake. If we put ourselves in his shoes, we can appreciate what it would take for one to shed the kingdom that is rightfully his. And also not leave the kingdom, but yet again bound by a promise to serve and protect the very same kingdom and the king who is actually ruling in his place, depriving him of what is his totally. Just how many could have done this? Salute to him many times!

I know, I haven't yet addressed your part regarding the support on adharmic side. He was bound by his vachan and he chose to live by it and in that process dharma was getting compromised and this is what Lord Krishna pointed out to him. And this applies to Dronacharya and Karna also. It is always a question of which takes precedence. And for the upholding of dharma, one can shed anything, even one's life if required. In this avatar the Lord has clarified the position of dharma and how one's vachan etc., though highly valued and needs to be adhered to more than one's lfe, cannot be give as a reason for the compromise of dharma. And through Mahabharata, the Lord has also clearly pointed out that even if chal' is required to establish dharma do not hesitate. And the goal and the intent takes precedence. That is exactly what Chanakya did. We see from our own history, that many great kings lost battles due their straightforwardness while the Mughals did chal' and won many battles. If to save the mother land requires some chal' to be done to keep the enemy out, it is worthwhile and the intent is noble. The Lord has said in the Gita "Mayacaaro mayaya vartitavyah saadhvaacaaro saadhuna vartitavyah", meaning the one doing chal' needs to be dealt with chal' (like in the case of Shakuni) and the one who is noble and pure need to dealt with accordingly (meaning we should not do chal' with them). A practical advise, right? Not that I am getting a certificate to God, as what He says is period anyway. We know what happened to Yudhistira and how Lord Krishna dealt with later. One may indeed say that Krishnaji did chal' - so be it. The net result is uproot of evil and establishing dharma. For that matter, the Lord was even ready to get a taint of letting go His vachan of not using any weapon in the war' by trying to kill Bhishma (though Arjuna stopped Him). This only shows, that He did what needs to be done at that moment, what is hith' in that context. If slaying of Bhishma is the only way to weaken the side of the evil and gain victory for the dharmic side, he was ready to do it. Yes people, may comment later that he let go His promise. He was the Lord, worshipped by all, but He just did not bother about His name being compromised. His focus was on what exactly needs to be done to achieve the ultimate goal.

By now, I would also have responded to your point on Krishnaji. I am not trying to make you think Krishnaji or Bhishma Pitaamah is great, that is your decision and perception, after all. I am only sharing some facts around it if it helps anyone having such views or needing any clarification on the matter. And these I can say with confidently. I may lack confidence in talking about history, but these points I am quite clear.

Specifically regarding the point that Krishnaji what to create his path of dharma and thereby he caused this war - I would like to clarify, that in our Hinduism, there is nothing like creating a new path. It is sanatana dharma and any holy avatar' only brings people gone astray back to this path. As Lord Krishna says in the Srimad Bhagavad Gita, whenever there is a decline of dharma and flourishing of dharma, I come to the earth taking an avatar to destroy adharma and establish dharma back. So, even in this case, Krishnaji did not create His own new dharma. He only reestablished what had gone to the dumps. And since the kings themselves, who were responsible for upholding the dharma, where adharmic, these wars had to come into the fore. Yatha raja, tathaa praja - like king, so is his subjects - so an adharmic king need to be weeded out as it is a bad influence on the society. And as I said above, unfortunately kings could be eliminated only thorugh war. And here again, the Lord went as a messenger of peace, still it was refused and war became the only option.

Regarding the point on Draupadi, my question back would ybe ou and I believe in God, so too many. Now does this mean, we should not face any problems? There are two ways of looking at it - first: if I belive in God completely anything that happens to me is His wish and therefore, I have no reason to crib or question, second: if I undergo a suffering now, it is only a punishment for a sin done before. This is the law of karma. And so, by this, because it is Draupadi, how could she be made to escape? Then what justice prevails - it will be a rule of impartiality by God. However, when Draupadi surrendered and asked for help, promptly it was there. Even today, so many accidents happen and so many innocents die, even be it due to terrorists attack. Now, God knows about all these in advance, but can He be blamed for this? Ofcourse, not. The God is impartial anyday, equal to all. That, that person need to atone for the sins done by them - only that is fair as we would agree. That is how the law of karma works and God does not interfere unless there is a plea for mercy, just like the judge does in the court of law.

MP, ofcourse, who can say he is not great?? 😊And Chetak being great - Wah! What a beautiful thought. I am sure Chetak is one anyone would agree undisputedly. Such a great horse! Wonderful thought dear friend. Just loved it J👏 And Kalpana Chawla - good one again. You are rocking Garima!! P😊lease keep adding to the list 😃

And you are also a great story teller 😊