The 'Yayati complex' in IPKKND - Page 4

Originally posted by: stafhtad

What an outstanding post !!!👏

I will read all the replies and if time permits will post a more coherent reply as your post deserves one.

I loved loved love and loved your post.

The serial may not be doing good, but I am getting to interact with such wonderfully intelligent people offering their unique thought provoking views forcing me to look at all things, even things which have nothing to do with IPK world, in new light. That is what is the most positive thing I wiil remember and cherish from IPKKND. And it has nothing to do with the serial it self.

Originally posted by: RamnVij

Thanks for your reply, and was very interesting you brought up Karna's portrayal. One of the earliest and best depictions of a complex, 'anti-hero' character. Karna's is seriously such a fascinating portrayal- he has so many admirable traits- his loyalty, valor, honesty and generosity. Yet he makes so many horrible choices- joining in Draupadi's humiliation, Abhimanyu's treacherous defeat and slaying.

I just wish the makers of the serial could take some inspiration from this portrayal, on how to really structure a complex character like Arnav's, carrying so much baggage from his past.

While watching the serial, sometimes you get a feeling the creatives don't really know how to proceed with Arnav's character. They don't seem to have a clue how to show his remorse/ redemption and just keep making him seem like an immature person at times.

Originally posted by: rima

thanks about my thread. but mine is mundane and everyday stuff

yours is unique and a gem

and yes they have beautiful characters somewhat like in mahabharat where every one of them from arjun to duryodhan to karan to bhisma pitama to dhrina were great. do you know all of them were flawed? and do you know duryodhan was not all black? for example he was a great friend to karan.

so i too wish ipk wud work on characters which they themself created so far different from soapdom as you observed

Originally posted by: Maverick29

Ok! Now I will start my response to this first with a disclaimer:

1. I am not trying to show off in any way shape or form.

2. Being someone that thinks he enjoys "intellectual" conversations, I will get on my soap box a bit.

3. Please dont take offence to what I will say as "showing up someone". You may have read a lot of what I am about to say -- so pardon me if it comes off as me trying to tell you what you already know.

With that said, here is my take:

Mahabharata more than Ramayana shows the "complexities" of human wants and needs. We kind of need to set the stage for the basis of these stories that you mention first before we get into why certain actions were a certain way and why they made sense. Ramayana was set in Treta Yuga when Dharma was still on 3 feet -- that is 3/4 of what humans did was Dharmic and 1/4 was Adharma.

Dharma during those times was set as "obedience to your elders" -- pertinent to this current discussion -- Obviously Dharma was not just one thing. Rama walked away from home to take care of the boons given by his father, Parasurama killed his mother and every kshatriya to up hold his Dharma etc etc. These we call "Vishnu's reincarnations" which show what is the right thing to do during those times -- Treta Yuga.

Yayati and Puru story is in the Dwapara Yuga before Vishnu in the form of Krishna showed what is about to come -- life in Dwapara and Kali Yuga to follow. Till Krishna was born Dharma and stories remained what Prasurama and Rama did for their fathers and mothers.

So, in Yayati's story, Puru was upholding Dharma -- Why is this argument significant? Here are the reasons:

1. We as human beings derive happiness through various things. Physical comforts, getting what we want, getting who we want, getting our way etc etc -- In general SUCCESS in what our mind and heart want is termed "happiness". However, when a person is born in such a way that he/she derives happiness through Dharma, they will follow what they think is the "right thing" -- by the way "Dharma" is nothing but the "right thing" for that time frame.

2. So, Puru derived happiness through performing his duty. He would have felt like Rama and Parasurama -- happy that he was able to perform his duty rather than seek what is an easier route of making "himself" happy. By the way Parasurama and Rama both performed their duties even though they were aware of their "devine" background. The laughed and cried like all humans but established what is "maryada" for the time. That is the reason Rama is called "Maryada Purushottam" -- one who upheld Dharma and hence is the supreme among humans (there is no real word that takes the essence of UTTAM in english because that thought process does not exist in today's life).

Now let us jump to Bhishma:

1. Bhishma is a "karana janmi" -- he was to create change. This is because of his past as one of the 8 Vasus -- Ganga if you recall from Mahabharata bore 8 children for Shantanu and she did it specifically to exonerate the 8 vasus that were cursed to be born on earth -- a world filled with suffering. So, if you remember from the story you read, Shantanu does not object to Ganga killing the first 7 children but stops her when she is about to give away the 8th. That 8th was to be born to create the path to Kali Yuga. Dharma in the world was eroding and Mahabharata had to happen to wipe the world's slate clean of the GREAT warriors and GREAT skills that existed.

2. So, Bhishma was born. Bhishma himself could not have children if he were to return to his world without any "bandhan" -- "relations". So, he shouldnt have children. Also, being a Vasu being reborn he had to uphold Dharma. Again when Devavrata (Bhishma) was born, he was not born in Kali, he was born in Dwapara with the ideals of the time -- Dharma. So, he followed his dharma when he took his oath. So, the time and the events that needed to happen did happen -- Bhishma should return to his world without being connected to the world of sufferings, Bhishma should follow Dharma since he is who he is -- both happened.

3. Now when Bhishma took the oath we know what resulted -- Chitrangadha and Vichitravirya took to the throne one after another. Chitrangadha though a great warrior and true king died childless. Vichitravirya was a moron, kind of a womanizer and sickly -- died of a decease before progeny. His marriage to Amba, Ambika and Ambalika was set up by Bhishma. We know Amba's story. Ambika and Ambalika could not get pregnant with Vichitravirya and hence Vyasa impregnated them.

Reality is, if Amba and Ambalika were not petrified during intercourse, they would not have given birth to "blind" and "pale and Sick" children in Dhritarashtra and Pandu.

Now with this backdrop, what you see is that Bhishma due to his birth and his background, was really meant to live like he did and he upheld his Dharma just like Puru did. Yayati had to learn a lesson when humans used to live for thousands of years and maintain their youth much longer than today. Those to great men lived by Dharma -- they lived and died with the satisfaction that they did not "betray" their Dharma. That is fundamentally more important than the physical comforts they would have enjoyed for a short time. If you notice the "impact of time and rules set by Narayan", Bhishma cannot die a natural death. If he had died the usual time instead of being a guy with "Icha Mrityu" -- he wouldnt be around to see the carnage. But his presence was a strong force on Duryodhana's armor. He was stronger because Bhishma killed half of Pandava's army on the day before Arjun used Shikhandi. He fulfilled his Dharma with his skill and his devine power.

Now after the entrance of Kali, people's thought process changed. We are in 3/4 adharma and 1/4 dharma age. So, it is natural that current writers (who for most part due to their pseudo western upbringing dont even believe that these stories happened) that look at those stories look at the "physical suffering" of these great men and not the "dharma" they upheld. Hence we in this age tend to look at everything as -- he suffered because he did this and hence we shouldnt do it.

We dont understand that Mahabharata had to happen one way or another -- great man Bhishma upheld his virtue and hence paved way so great warriors of great skill and unlimited powers could come to one battle field and die. Why did they have to die? Simple -- Kali Yuga was beginning and human beings had to live -- these great warriors possessed powers to wipe out human race -- just like our nuclear bombs now. They had to be wiped out so their Dharmic Thinking was removed and the world which is full of "physical pleasure" seekers is born. Imagine a powerful Bhishma in a corrupt, polluted, overpopulated, treating people like termites, people living like termites India of today -- what would he have done to rectify the situation with the immense powers he possessed? That couldnt happen per "NARAYAN -- Vishnu" who sets rules for our life. This Yuga has to end before human beings can be trusted with powers again and we evolve again.

So, it would be an unfair comparison between Puru, Bhishma and what Khushi is doing today.

I keep saying one thing -- there are still people in this world that like "being Dharmic" and doing their work and not worrying about results. As long as we do our work right, what we get as results is not in our hands. So, I keep saying Khushi's happiness is related to that. She is doing everything per her "dharma" the way she sees it. She is not eating happy pills, she is not being self sacrificing -- she is just performing her "duty" -- as long as she does that she is happy and her soul is clean. It is the rest around her that will continue to suffer because of their actions -- she can smile in the face of humiliation because she knows that she is "RIGHT" -- that feeling is so strong that any amount of these stupid things do not touch it. When they eventually get to the right path, everyone gets happy. She with her ways is bringing Arnav to understand at least a part of what the "right thing" is. She has a similar impact on others as well. People like Khushi can either INFURIATE people because of their goodness because these people cannot see themselves doing what she does or make people so damn happy because she is so damn good.

Indian writers because of our background in Dharma and history which by the way in some form or another is handed down through generations still have this "shadow" on them -- they write real Kali Yuga characters like Arnav/Anjali/Mami/ etc etc but they also write "dharmic" characters like "Khushi" -- this may be deliberate or subconscious. Either way, once they write the character, they are kind of stuck in it!!!

So, dont think that Khushi's sacrifice now is bad really. It is what "she would want" if a "dharmic" character is created. If we are talking the current crop which says "if I dont look out for myself, I will suffer" -- this is not the right person. She is NOT looking for that kind of fun. She is VERY HAPPY inside! That is the reason if you see what I keep whinging about, it is "why are people around her not learning", not why she is behaving the way she is. She makes me HAPPY with the way she handles things.

Honestly, going by where I came from, some of you will find this explanation to be "laughable", "stupid", and "unworldly" -- Naive etc etc. But this is the fundamental Dharma that is missing in our world today. That is the reason "suffering" is that much more -- for livelihood, for relationships, the purity in them etc etc. Indian civilization is bas***dized today because they forgot their Dharma. Also, there are so many books that make Dharma such a BORING thing and "practical reality" of going after the the next iPhone (coming in september by the way) such a sexy thing -- thinking that both cannot co-exist!!! Those books drive this generation to go more into "oblivious" living.

The Crux is "100 times out of 100" if Puru and Bhishma were put in that situation again -- they would do exactly the same thing -- because it is Dharma they are thinking about not "what makes them happy". In this day and age, people are not able to separate both and are happy to say "self sacrifice is stupid" etc etc. While it is probably true in some cases, if it is based on "dharma" and what is right, it still belongs to the 1/4 of our deeds.

To make it even clearer -- PURU and BHISHMA were chosen ones because of their souls -- the "sutradhari" chose them because they would not wobble when the time came to execute their word. Khushi character does not Wobble -- she does what she thinks is her Dharma to keep her family safe and people around her happy.

Cheers.

Originally posted by: RamnVij

Yes, you are right, the characters in the epic are so textured and rich. No one is shown as a caricature of good or evil. Just with shades of grey- with some being much more flawed than others!

Thanks again for the kind words regarding my post. But please don't quibble and term your thread as mundane. As a reader who thoroughly enjoys your style of writing, I object!! 😊

but i still liked this post because it has the soul of our ancient mythology and philosophy and compared with the serial. very unique

Originally posted by: RamnVij

@ Maverick 29

Thanks for your detailed response and your analysis. I think you've outlined well, the web of fate, cause and effect that governs the way the world works.

I don't agree with your final analysis 😊. Not arguing with you on the facts of the tales here. But one of the Greatest features of Indian mythology, is that it lends itself to varied interpretation and shades of opinion.

My interpretation (inspired of course by the analysis and conclusions set out in books on the Mahabharata I had mentioned in my post earlier) is that the epic clearly implies all actions have consequences.

You know, there's a tale that when the feud between the cousins (Pandavas & Kauravas) became too bitter to contain, and the talk of handing over Kandavaprastha (the later day Indraprastha) to the Pandavas began, Bhishma was very upset at the thought of this division of the Royal House.

The story goes that he then approached the elders and leading wise men of Hastinapur, and asked their opinion of the correct course of action. Its really illuminating what they are reported to have said. "You never asked our opinion before taking your foolish vow. Why ask us now when the consequences of your action are finally bearing fruit?" 😊

The point of difference in interpretation is this: Could Puru, or Bhishma after him, have avoided the chain of circumstances leading to the war if they had acted differently? Did they not have any choice in acting as links in a Great Design? Or did they, by their actions, leave an imprint that would further push the Design one way or the other?

Is Dharma a rigid, unyielding truth set in stone? Or is it a complex, contextual truth? We come back again to the discussion between fate and free will 😊 I guess the scope of this debate would go on and on, so lets agree to disagree here 😊

On Khushi's actions, also, I would like to disagree a bit from what you have said. I don't really feel she is Very happy inside because of the selfless acts she does. She is an innately cheery person anyway, who loves to do things for others too much! This excessive sacrificing for others in fact makes her unhappy a lot of times, she is shown suffering and weeping through the consequences, when the ones she loves, misunderstand her motives and even malign her character!