let's discuss the biggest epic ever: MAHABHARAT - Page 6

Originally posted by: charminggenie

The thing is we are so lost in debating the authenticity of the mythology or playing out the Devil's advocate for these character that we generally get distracted from what MB and BhagawadGeeta truly meant. Hence the relevance to the present context- we need to learn from them about responsible power, envy,jealousy , loyalty , karma and so on. The essence is in thinking and understanding how emotions internalizes us , among other things.

Originally posted by: peridot.

@ bold- Not clear what you mean here. Are you trying to say that they should have been more responsible and avoided war? After all that the pandavas had to endure and all peace attempts failing I think Pandavas were well within their rght to wage a war.

The MB cannot teach anyone anything agianst their wishes. Each will learn from it what they are inclined to. Free will -remember 😉

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

There is no middle ground here where debating the authenticity of mythology, cause either it existed or it did not, and if it did exist then to which extend it's true.

e.g: In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains the nature of soul, he says that atma is neither born nor does it die, it is unborn, everlasting, primeval; It is not killed, though the body is killed.

For the sake of argument: If this be so, then a murder should no longer be considered a crime, it is only an act of liberating the soul from the clutches of the body. If atma is immortal and the body comes to an end sooner or later, does it justify our killing other persons ? It is true that the Kauravas would have died their natural deaths some day, but that could not be a justification for Arjuna to kill them today...

For me mythology cannot be anything but middle ground. It is the blending of history with some sort of fantasy fiction. The end reason is something that is neither history nor fantasy fiction. Although a lot of people do take extreme stances. Some view mythology as truth. Some view mythology as fiction.

I think justifying murder is a literal and extreme interpretation of Krishna's discourse on the eternal soul. The focal point of Krishna's discourse is karma. While we are in a mortal form, our mortality is our reality. We are governed by mortal ethics and morals. We are yet to attain moksha and free our soul. You cannot simply kill and assume that you have liberated a soul. You have to truly understand the nature of moksha and eternal soul to do so. You have to do so selflessly with no desire of gain or loss. The act should be of pure righteousness and not tainted by human desires and emotions. And in the Mahabharata the each and every one of the Pandavas did pay for their sins on and off the battlefield.

Krishna's discourse to Arjuna was not to justify war or murder, but to help him realize the difference between war and righteousness. The point is you have to take a stand for what is right, even if it is against loved ones. You cannot regret taking a stand for the right. You have to look at the big picture.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

For me mythology cannot be anything but middle ground. It is the blending of history with some sort of fantasy fiction. The end reason is something that is neither history nor fantasy fiction. Although a lot of people do take extreme stances. Some view mythology as truth. Some view mythology as fiction.

I think justifying murder is a literal and extreme interpretation of Krishna's discourse on the eternal soul. The focal point of Krishna's discourse is karma. While we are in a mortal form, our mortality is our reality. We are governed by mortal ethics and morals. We are yet to attain moksha and free our soul. You cannot simply kill and assume that you have liberated a soul. You have to truly understand the nature of moksha and eternal soul to do so. You have to do so selflessly with no desire of gain or loss. The act should be of pure righteousness and not tainted by human desires and emotions. And in the Mahabharata the each and every one of the Pandavas did pay for their sins on and off the battlefield.

Krishna's discourse to Arjuna was not to justify war or murder, but to help him realize the difference between war and righteousness. The point is you have to take a stand for what is right, even if it is against loved ones. You cannot regret taking a stand for the right. You have to look at the big picture.

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

There is no middle ground here where debating the authenticity of mythology, cause either it existed or it did not, and if it did exist then to which extend it's true.

e.g: In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains the nature of soul, he says that atma is neither born nor does it die, it is unborn, everlasting, primeval; It is not killed, though the body is killed.

For the sake of argument: If this be so, then a murder should no longer be considered a crime, it is only an act of liberating the soul from the clutches of the body. If atma is immortal and the body comes to an end sooner or later, does it justify our killing other persons ? It is true that the Kauravas would have died their natural deaths some day, but that could not be a justification for Arjuna to kill them today...

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

Crime is crime, either done on a basis of righteousness or for the sake of killing, doesn't change output, and as you also stated that Pandavas did pay a hefty price as well.

Crime is crime. I don't think you can justify crime. However, I do feel a lot of human actions are grey. . A harm can actually be for good. A lack of harm can actually be evil. I don't think humans will ever truly understand right/wrong, good/evil. But the message is to act/perform karma with the intention of greater good without worrying about the consequences to self.

There is greyness in our actions and we pay for the dark shades and reap rewards for the light shades.

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

Crime is crime, either done on a basis of righteousness or for the sake of killing, doesn't change output, and as you also stated that Pandavas did pay a hefty price as well.

Originally posted by: peridot.

check the bold. From what I read Draupadi never had a childhood and was "directly an adult".

The MB is full of instances of supernatural births and other events which puts it more in line with a mythology. The birth of Shishupala, Jarasandha, Kauravas, Krishna, Vyasa were all abnormal or extraordinary.

A few random thoughts--

If Pandavas were not biological children of Pandu whereas the Kauravas were biological sons of Dhritirashtra there was bound to be a dispute for the claim to HP throne.

Vyasa was Satyawati's son out of wedlock just as Karna was Kunti's . However Rishi Vyasa was a revered rishi whereas Karna's birth was supposed to be socially unacceptable.

Rishi Parashuram was Vishnu's avatar yet Karna was cursed by him when it was "discovered " that he was a kshatriya and not a brahmin. How could someone "fool" an avatar of Vishnu? On the otherhand if Parashuram had been aware that Karna had been lying why did he teach him in the first place?

Was asking for the thumb of Eklavya as gurudakshina a part of dharma or adharma?

More later--

Eklavya

This is a complicated incident. Like many events in Mahabharata, I don't think it can be truly classified as adharma or dharma.

In the small scheme of things, it reeks of adharma. Drona unfairly took advantage of Eklavya's devotion. He was prejudiced towards Arjuna and denied Eklavya his glory.

However, would Eklavya have been as well known if he had not sacrificed his thumb? As a lowly tribal boy, he would never have had the opportunity to go to war or compete in tournaments like the nobles did. He may have never got the opportunities. He may have been a character lost in the pages of history. That one sacrifice, that one expensive gurudakshina made Eklavya renown for being a prized student and great warrior. Maybe Drona gave him the only shot at glory that was due to him.

In the grand scheme of things Drona's demand of an unfair gurudakshina sets the stage for many things. Would Arjuna have ever grown to be the warrior he was if he didn't believe he had Drona's undivided attention? Would Arjuna have agreed to pay Drona his heavy gurudakshina of raising arms against him and fighting unto death. Seeing Eklavya's sacrifice made Arjuna keen on impressing Drona further. And without Arjuna promising battle as gurudakshina the outcome of Kurukshetra would be different.

Also we need to remember Drona was not renown for his dharma. As a Brahmin who lived a kshatriya lifestyle he was already frowned upon. He made many questionable decisions during war as well. In fact people were convinced Drona abandoned ethics of warfare when he was commander in chief. Drona was a revered good guy, but he had immensely dark shades to his character.