Do you think Vidur was right to suggest Dhuryodhan be thrown out? - Page 2

I agree Vidur was a righteous man, but also the question was is it righteous to condone the murder of a clean and pure child, despite what he would become later?

I was under the impression Vidur said leave the child in the forest, (which would lead to his death?)

Originally posted by: Manojie

I agree Vidur was a righteous man, but also the question was is it righteous to condone the murder of a clean and pure child, despite what he would become later?

I was under the impression Vidur said leave the child in the forest, (which would lead to his death?)

I agree that leaving the child in a forest might lead to his death, but it is also possible that another couple might find and adopt him right? I mean, it's better than killing a child with their bare hands.

I kind of see it as Kunti setting Karna afloat on the river after his birth. Of course, Surya Dev had promised to protect his child until someone found him, but without taking any divine intervention into consideration, Karna could have easily drowned, but under the circumstances Kunti was powerless to do more. She was a very young girl living in a male dominated society, and keeping Karna with her would have destroyed his future along with hers. Karna's label of "suta putra" was way better than what it would have been had he remained with Kunti throughout his life. He would have been known as an illegitimate child, which was far worse than being known as a lower class man. Kunti was trying to give her child a better future by setting him afloat.

Vidur too had good intentions. He was simply looking out for the future of the Kingdom in advising Dhritarastra to abandon Duryodhan. I know it seems like a cruel plot, but if the child was prophesied to bring on the destruction of the clan, it was a serious issue.

Visrom, What you say has good point. Definitely it is said in original MBH, Vidura told Dhrit to kill the baby. Telling that is definitely cruel and Dhrit would be extremely heartbroken if he had to do that. And what you say about the upbringing is also a nice point.

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

. She was a very young girl living in a male dominated society, and keeping Karna with her would have destroyed his future along with hers. Karna's label of "suta putra" was way better than what it would have been had he remained with Kunti throughout his life. He would have been known as an illegitimate child, which was far worse than being known as a lower class man. Kunti was trying to give her child a better future by setting him afloat.

Peridot, Niyog was an act which was done out of sheer necessity and desperation. there was purpose for doing that act and when it was done, people who called out for doing that were prepared to take responsibility for what would happen out of the Niyog done. Dhrit, Pandu and Pandavas were all born out of Niyog and they were taken care of by the elders. Definitely Gandharva marriage and marriage without witness can be recognized. but those who get marry that way have to take full responsibility of that marriage and then things will be rosy. If one of them fails to take responsibility, that can badly affect the other person also. That can be possibly one reason why this type of marriage is discouraged.

Originally posted by: maha2us

Peridot, Niyog was an act which was done out of sheer necessity and desperation. there was purpose for doing that act and when it was done, people who called out for doing that were prepared to take responsibility for what would happen out of the Niyog done. Dhrit, Pandu and Pandavas were all born out of Niyog and they were taken care of by the elders. Definitely Gandharva marriage and marriage without witness can be recognized. but those who get marry that way have to take full responsibility of that marriage and then things will be rosy. If one of them fails to take responsibility, that can badly affect the other person also. That can be possibly one reason why this type of marriage is discouraged.

Suppose an immature boy and girl have sex with each other and then the girl becomes pregnant and then the boy says he doesn't want the child and he abandons the girl what will be her case? what will happen to her and the child?

So basically it is about the possibility that the boy may refuse totake responsibility and woman could be in trouble. What if live in relationships that we see so commnly thee days where the couple seems to trust each other and both are usually financially independent. Would it be or should it be acceptable in that case?

As far Kunti also, if she had to keep the child the question would come how she got the child. And that also in a place where she was an adopted child. If the father actually loved his daughter, he would not have told her to serve Durvasas. Thus Kuntibhoja showed he was not the actual father. I am not sure whether Kunti did that act and kept the secret for the child's sake. I believe she did that because she was not prepared to face the society which could have shamed her by telling any number of stories about her which could have destroyed her future and later also she kept that a secret because she was afraid her reputation would be lost if she told what happened.

Durvasa was a renowned and respected sage. Couldnt Kunti have told the truth. Durvasa could have verified it if the need arose? Since Surya devta was someone above her status it should have been acceptable. I think the fear was only because of the importance given to the ritual of marriage in society.

Killing a baby is never a solution. I dont support it. Vidur in his ways is right to some extent, but what Duryodhan became was due to Shakuni's evil and immoral preaching, and Dhrityarashtra's blind love and lack of disciplining him at a young age. In a way perhaps Vidur anticipated this(maybe...?) and hence suggested the extreme measure. Its always a parent's duty to bring up a child, to teach him righteousness, however Dhritarashtra and Gandhari(to some extent) completely screwed up as parents. I blame them most.

I think perhaps we should look at prophecies like Harry Potter 😆

Do Prophecies predict the future or do they encourage people to behave in a certain way fulfilling the prophecy?

So many prophecies were made about Dhuryodhan. I am by no means comparing Ved Vyas to Professor Trealawney, but could Dhuryodhan have been moulded into what people thought he would become? Yes Shakuni poisoned him, but Bheeshma knew what Shakuni was like. Why didn't he prevent Shakuni from spending time with him? Was it because he already knew the prophecy and inauspicious signs?

Originally posted by: Manojie

Yes Shakuni poisoned him, but Bheeshma knew what Shakuni was like. Why didn't he prevent Shakuni from spending time with him? Was it because he already knew the prophecy and inauspicious signs?

How could bheeshma prevent Shakuni when he ws wlcomed by Dhriti? Gandhari if not blindfolded could have kept a better watch on what her brother was upto and also on her children. She could have ordered her brother to return to his own kingdom instead of being a permanent eature in Hastinapur. It looks like Dhriti was all in favourof Shakuni as he encouraged him in his ambitions towards his sons.

Originally posted by: Manojie

Now I ask this question:

People often ask: If you could travel back in time and Kill Hitler when he was a baby. Would you?