Duryodhan- A Misunderstood Character Or Not? - Page 3

Originally posted by: lola610

Thanks for posting that excerpt Janu, we soooooo often need it in like every second debate... it's a common but unfortunate misunderstanding that reflects so badly on such a great character! The question remains as to who started this misconception whenever it first appeared in lit/cinema/art, and why they would do that 😕 You're welcome, Lola...like Rehan said, almost every English translation of MB has Draupadi either laughing and/or calling Duryodhan blind, insulting Dhritarastra, etc, and while I can defend her laughing at him, I cannot defend her calling him, "Andha Ke Putr Andha." It is so not her character and while she did have an arrogant side, she was also a great woman with self-respect and dignity. BRC is not the only one who overdid Draupadi's character in that one scene...many Telugu mytho movies I saw also did it, so I do not think it is blameworthy on any director. It is probably from some folk story which over-dramatized that scene to make us feel more sympathy for Duryodhan.

And I totally agree with you word for word regarding the utility of Ramayan vs. Mahabharat for the purpose of understanding dharma correctly, well said 👏 It is certainly true that all the characters in the Mahabharat are gray-shaded, but that ambiguity makes for more interesting debates - not more understandable messages. The underlined line - well put! While Ramayan discussions are as interesting as any MB ones, they are more discussions than debates, because there is not much we can debate about in the Ramayan. Everyone is either good or bad, and the important thing in it is the message. It is full of messages that can help us throughout our lifetime, while in MB...the message is mostly anything that involves Krishna. We can't get much of a moral message from the Pandavas/Kauravas scenes except how to behave in society, trust God, etc. In MB there are innumerable debates, and the main message comes from the Bhagawad Gita more than the rest of the epic.

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

Regardless of whether she called Duryodhan blind or even laughed at him, it is true that Draupadi did have a streak of arrogance. After all, when the Pandavas retire in the end of Mahabharat and walk up the mountain that leads them to Dev Lok, she fell down because her fault was said to be pride and arrogance. It is just that I do not believe even she would have called Duryodhan blind and insulted Dhritarastra, who was like a father-in-law to her, in the process. That is not just arrogance, but sinful. Draupadi was arrogant at times, yes, but she was not sinful.

Actually, I find Ramayan more to display the difference between Dharma and Adharma than Mahabharat, because in Ramayan it shows the explicit difference between Dharma and Adharma. There are those ideal characters who symbolize Dharma, and the sinful ones who symbolize Adharma. A man is taught to live the ideal life by characters such as Shri Ram, Lakshman, Bharat, Hanuman, Sita, etc, while in Mahabharat, Dharma and Adharma is often confused because of the gray-shadedness of the characters. When we analyze the actions of Karna, Bhishma, Dronacharya, the Pandavas, etc, we often get confused who followed their Dharma and who went against Adharma. Many many many people have sooo many differences between their opinions about the characters, and people also have their favorites and least favorites because of their opinion on what Dharma and Adharma is, that in the end of the day, it is up to us whether we wish to believe in Shri Krishna unconditionally and support the Pandavas, or believe our own definition of Dharma and support the Kauravas.

On the other hand, when it comes to Ramayan everyone has almost the same favorite characters, because they all define the same Dharma. To this day I have not met a fan of Ravan who criticizes Ram, or a fan of Indrajit who criticizes Lakshman, while I have met many people who are fans of Duryodhan and Karna and criticize the Pandavas.

So for me, Ramayan is easier to learn what is Dharma and what is Adharma. Mahabharat is definitely more relatable today's society, but its rules of Dharma are often confusing and people can very easily misinterpret them if they do not unconditionally have trust in Krishna and analyze the characters the way they wish. I love and value both the Ramayan and Mahabharat equally, but when it comes to living my life the right way, I look to the Ramayan. In Mahabharat, I learn most about what devotion is and how one can achieve victory by surrendering themselves completely to the Lord. More than the Mahabharat as a whole, I believe the Bhagawat Gita in it teaches us the most.

Originally posted by: Darklord_Rehan

Actually it's this very 'confusion' which makes things plainer. I have said this in an earlier post as well. There is no Dharma in following scriptures or shastras. I guess is where we differ. I am a great follower of both the shastras and puranas, because I believe that some aspects of the puranas are hard to understand without the shastras, and the shastras themselves mirror the puranas. Of course, the puranas are more interesting to read (guilty smile😆) so I open those more than the shastras, but the latter are not without merit. These religious texts like Vedas, Bible, Quran, Granths are all mere rule books laid down by men who claimed themselves to be the representatives of God. That is why these rule books can never teach us Dharma. They can tell us to observe fast, hold rituals, offer prayers to various deities in various ways, but can actually never give us true knowledge. Because Dharma is not in prayers or rituals - Dharma is within us. Our body is a castle with 9 gates. Out of these, 8 gates are more or less under our control barring the ninth one. The Ninth gate is our conscience. That gate alone leads to Krishna. If one follows his own conscience, instead of these rule books and the norms laid down in them, we shall be called Dharmic. But what one considers their conscience is not always right. People who've done sinful deeds in the past have claimed to follow their conscience...we are humans and therefore fallible to mistakes. We cannot always trust only ourselves. Yes, we need trust in ourselves, but we must mold our moral beliefs based on the deep research that past scholars and saints have done before pennind down the shastras. The men who wrote the scriptures of all the religions were not mere men like you or me. They were great saints who were in personal touch with God. They did not 'claim' to be representatives of God. It was the truth. Of course, everything you and I are discussing right now is based on belief alone because neither of us can really prove that the writers of the scriptures had or had not any contact with God, but this is what I believe. Accept this, then even atheists can be Dharmic, if they believe in themselves instead of believing in religion. This is the kernel of Bhagwat Gita, which you can find in no other religious book. Yes, atheists can be good people, but I cannot accept that they can be Dharmic, because how can one who shuns God be dharmic? Dharma comes from righteous deeds, and righteous deeds come from God.

As far Ramayan is concerned, its much more idealistic. Its good for reading, but its practically of no use in today's world. That's because people are faced with too much temptations. Yes, Ramayan is an idealistic world, but some of the decisions and actions the characters took during the Treta Yug can very much be repeated in this day and age...people are only too lazy to do so. In the Second Age, Ram and Ravan were separate people. Today, in the Fourth Age, there's a Ram and a Ravan in every soul. That's why Maryada Purushottam Ram is insufficient to kill Ravans of this age. We require Krishna in such times. That's also true, but in certain aspects...Krishna was not very different from Ram. Yes, he did use different strategies to annihilate evil, but in the end of the day, both Ram and Krishna's teachings were one and the same and if a person really puts their mind to it, the duties of an ideal son, husband, brother, and father that Ram displayed can very well be taken as a role model and emulated by people. Like I said, people are just too lazy and don't want to be faced with the obstacles that being 'good' comes with.

Besides, we can also question Ram's action regarding the banishment of Sita. Did Ram actually follow his conscience and did what was right? Or did he just obey the prevalent norms and traditions of the society? Was justice meted out to a woman who was banished from the society for no fault of her's? This is a whole new debate in itself and I'll be happy to discuss it with you if you (or I) open a new thread for it. I do believe Ram did what was right. Ram did his duty, Sita did his duty, and everyone in Uttar Kand did their duty only, but I don't think this thread is the right place to discuss it.

In this regard, I find Krishna a more apt role model. Unlike Maryada Purushottam, he broke rules, cheated, tricked and lied on many occasions, but all his actions could be justified if we understand the true meaning of Dharma. Eveything can be abandoned for Dharma, but there is nothing for which Dharma can be forsaken. That's a nice quote there, did you make it up?😲 But yeah, I agree with the last part. However, for me both Ram and Krishna are apt role models, just in different ways. I cannot live my life wither either of them....my life would not be the same without either Ramayan or Bhagawad Gita.

If Ramayan taught us what should be done, Mahabharat warned us about what should never be done - which I think is far more important.😛 Hmm, I guess it all differs how you look at it. We should know both what should be done and what should not be done in our lifetime, because both together balance out our Karma. If we do a bad deed, we should know what should be done to erase it, and if we do a good deed, we should know what not to do to preserve it

Lalitha, there is difference between 'claiming' to follow Dharma and actually following it. If you consider Shastras to be Dharma, then I am afraid, Draupadi Vastraharan was perfectly Dharmic.

1. Yudhishtir gambled away his brothers and wife : He had every right to do so, since the Shastras declare wife and children as the 'property' of the husband. For the same reason, Harishchandra sold away his wife and children.

2. Duryodhan ordering the Vastraharan : Again he had every right to do that. The same Shastras declare slaves as the properties of their master and are indistinguishable from inanimate objects.

3. Karna calling Draupadi a wh**e : The Shastras say that any woman marrying/ begetting child to more than 4 men is a prostitute. Its because of this reason, Kunti refused to beget any more child after Arjuna, as she was already the mother of 4 sons from 4 different fathers.

4. Dusshasan stripping Draupadi : Firstly she was a 'slave' and secondly, the Shastras declare Elder brother as equivalent of father. And obeying him is the biggest virtue. So even Dusshasan was virtuous if we consider Shastras to be Dharma.

In this way you can justify every one. The only culprit would then be Lord Krishna, who broke all these 'dharmas' laid down in scriptures.

Yes atheists can be Dharmic if my interpretation of Dharma is true and they are Adharmis if Dharma means obeying scriptures or regularly chanting the names of God. But then, just as scriptures vary from every religion, does the sense of Dharma vary too? That means for a Hindu, a Muslim is Adharmi, because he doesn't follow Shastras and for a Muslim, a Hindu is a Kafir because he doesn't obey Quran??

And when you say Ram did his 'duty' then I wish to know what was this 'duty'? Is it serving justice by following his conscience or blindly obeying the social norms?

Originally posted by: Darklord_Rehan

Lalitha, there is difference between 'claiming' to follow Dharma and actually following it. If you consider Shastras to be Dharma, then I am afraid, Draupadi Vastraharan was perfectly Dharmic. Actually, it was not...shastras are rules on how mankind is to live, yes, but like all other rules in society, they differ from situation to situation. The laws we have in a country are not the same for every situation. Every time a court is faced with a new rule-breaking done by someone under different circumstances than another, they will look at it differently. For example, murder is sin in our society and is punishable as a grave offense. However, if someone murders another under self-defense and that too as a last resort to save himself/herself and their family, courts will not punish them either not at all or not as severely as if they had killed another person for sadistic pleasure. The circumstances of the laws differ for each situation. Likewise, the rules of the shastras also differ for each situation. They are not ground out rules one must follow for each and every situation. A person should use the shastras to follow their Dharma, not to defend their Adharma.

1. Yudhishtir gambled away his brothers and wife : He had every right to do so, since the Shastras declare wife and children as the 'property' of the husband. For the same reason, Harishchandra sold away his wife and children. The shastras also say that the wife is a man's equal and that without both pillars standing erect, a household will collapse. These both are contradictory statements obviously, so which one should a person follow? The one that is according to their Dharma...what Yudhisthira and Harischandra did was not morally right according to Shastras (insert Vidur's refusal to consider Draupadi a slave), but because of the different circumstances both were under, they were compelled to do so. Also, both were without any support in those circumstances, surrounded by the supporters of their antagonists, so they had no choice but to do what they did. It was not right, and as neither of them were Gods they did have their faults as well, but the shastras definitely did not support their actions.

2. Duryodhan ordering the Vastraharan : Again he had every right to do that. The same Shastras declare slaves as the properties of their master and are indistinguishable from inanimate objects. The shastras also say every human has to behave in a humane fashion. Disrobing one's servant itself is sinful and a punishable offense by not only the King, but also by God. Disrobing anyone is sinful regardless of what they are to you, so Duryodhan was very much in the wrong by ordering Draupadi's vastraharan. Even had she been his slave, he should have quietly and with dignity ordered her to reside with the other servants. Even slaves had their rights back in those times, and no one would have taken to being disrobed quietly.

3. Karna calling Draupadi a wh**e : The Shastras say that any woman marrying/ begetting child to more than 4 men is a prostitute. Its because of this reason, Kunti refused to beget any more child after Arjuna, as she was already the mother of 4 sons from 4 different fathers. Shastras also say a mother's word is final and that whatever a mother tells you to do, even if it is considered sinful by others, the sin will not touch you. So does that rule out what you just said since both came from the shastras? However, one other rule that the shastras say is that God's word is final in any situation. If one is faced with a circumstance where two rules of the shastras conflict with each other, they must look to God for guidance and do whatever he says. So since Krishna himself married Draupadi to the Pandavas, she cannot be called a prostitute or anything else.

4. Dusshasan stripping Draupadi : Firstly she was a 'slave' and secondly, the Shastras declare Elder brother as equivalent of father. And obeying him is the biggest virtue. So even Dusshasan was virtuous if we consider Shastras to be Dharma. When Ravan kicked out Vibhishan and the latter sought refuge in Ram, Vibhishan himself used the shastras as support for his actions. When the elder brother is doing something sinful and has ordered you to partake in his sin, it is the duty of the younger brother to correct his mistakes, and if that fails, the younger brother must leave him so that the sin does not touch him. Vibhishan himself quoted from the shastras, and this too is true, so Dushashan was completely in the wrong by following Duryodhan's orders. One must use these two rules of obeying the brother and correcting the brother when he is wrong hand in hand. At all other times when an elder brother is right, it is the duty of the younger brother to follow his example, but when the elder brother goes astray, it again is the duty of the younger brother to correct him. One must make the distinction when the situation arises, since both rules come from the shastras.

Yes atheists can be Dharmic if my interpretation of Dharma is true and they are Adharmis if Dharma means obeying scriptures or regularly chanting the names of God. But then, just as scriptures vary from every religion, does the sense of Dharma vary too? That means for a Hindu, a Muslim is Adharmi, because he doesn't follow Shastras and for a Muslim, a Hindu is a Kafir because he doesn't obey Quran?? I do not consider Dharma to be following any one religion. I consider Dharma to be following just God. Whether you call that God Krishna, Allah, or Jesus, it does not matter. What is important is that all your actions in life are geared towards begetting the approval of God and securing a place in heaven because of your good deeds. That is what I feel is Dharma, and as atheists are those who do not even believe in the existence of God, any God, I do not believe they can be completey Dharmic.

And when you say Ram did his 'duty' then I wish to know what was this 'duty'? Is it serving justice by following his conscience or blindly obeying the social norms? He neither blindly followed social norms nor did he serve justice by following his conscience. What conscience would Ram have? Ram is God himself and God is conscience to everyone else, so God himself cannot have conscience. He followed his duty as King, and a King's Dharma is to see to the interests of his praja. Ram's dilemma is described very well in the Uttar Kand, and it is a whole new debate I have argued with many people in the past. That is why I say I cannot talk about it in this thread, because my mindset is still in the Dwapar Yug and it would be easier to dedicate a whole new thread to Ram. But one thing is certain. He who takes Shri Krishna as the ultimate guidance in the Mahabharata cannot criticize Shri Ram, because both were avatars of the same Shri Hari. When we look to criticize the actions of Gods, we can find pleny in Krishna too because some of his childhood leelas would have been wrong had a normal human being done them. But God is beyond right and wrong. God is the ultimate decider of Dharma and Adharma, so we do not fault Krishna and instead we love him all the more for every one of his leelas. Likewise, we also cannot fault Shri Ram for whatever may seem controversial to us. HE is beyond right and wrong, and God knows best no matter what situation it is. Accepting Krishna and refusing to accept Ram is like accepting one's right hand and shunnig the left, and vice versa. If one takes Shri Krishna to be the complete guidance in Mahabharat, he/she must also take Shri Ram to be the complete guidance in Ramayan or else they have not understood the deeper meaning of the two puranas.