Like or Dislike Yudhishtir/ VB Nt pg 22 - Page 19

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

He did have the right to do it, but no, it wasn't the right thing to do. The question, Draupadi posed though, was a legal quagmire for him - whether he had the right to do it after he had lost himself. Also, even if he had staked her b4 he had lost himself, could he have staked her given that she belonged to his brothers as well, who were already slaves? But neither Draupadi nor his brothers questioned the initial right to stake them.

No, this was a sordid incident w/ him, but there are plenty of others. Like his decision to involve the Kauravas as co-hosts in the Rajasuya yagna - something any moron could have known wouldn't be appreciated. Had he had the sense to not invite them, but just invite some representatives - Bheeshma & Vidura, for instance, it would have been fine.

Oh, my other major reason for loathing him - him being a burden on his army. On day 11, when the Kauravas came up w/ the strategy to capture him, he should have taken practical decisions. As it was, the Pandavas were weaker, and on top of that, he became their single point of failure. That was what led to Abhimanyu's death.

Instead, had he set up a succession chain that if he was captured and lost his freedom, leadership of the Pandavas would pass on to Bhima, then Arjun and so on. After all, it was Indraprastha they were fighting for. So had Yudisthir set it up that if he was captured, he'd renounce all his rights and let Bhima take over, that would have solved it. Bhima too could have set the same terms in case he was defeated. If Bhima had been captured, then the Kauravas would have run into a brick wall against Arjun. I don't think it would have gone that far - had Yudisthir made such a plan, Duryodhan would have abandoned that goal, since a Bhima @ the helm of the Pandavas would have made it a battle for survival of the Kauravas, since Bhima would now have been free to order anything, and his supporters would have had to obey. In fact, Bhima could even have ordered Krishna to join the war as a combatant.

Oh, after the war, asking his brothers to do everything to help Dhritarashtra & Gandhari forget the loss of their sons. Given that this war had happened @ Duryodhan's behest and w/ Dhritarashtra's approval, it was a moronic thing to do. Equally moronic at the time was the Pandava womenfolk waiting on Gandhari like maids, like Gandhari was the only one who had lost everything. Bhima did well to sabotage his plans, and cause Dhritarashtra & Gandhari to leave.

One thing I like to point out though - the way they depicted him as being overly loving to Dhritarashtra & Gandhari in BRC - inquiring about them but not Kunti - was excessive. I filtered that garbage out of my mind while looking for reasons.

Uh, he staked his brothers b4 he staked himself. Had he staked Draupadi too b4 staking himself, it would have been legal. Not right, mind you, but legal (see below my note on Harishchandra)

We need to remember that we're talking about Dwapar Yuga here. Today, the idea of owning servants or slaves or women, or treating animals badly, or kings owning citizens et al may offend our sensibilities. But we need to remember that these were the existing norms at the time. Yeah, rulers who treated servants or animals well certainly deserve to be praised. But if other rulers treated them as per the norm, that can't be a legitimate ground for criticism, since they were operating by standards at the time.

How many of you hate Harishchandra? When he was destitute as a result of Vishwamitra's sadistic experiments, the only thing he had to sell was his wife. His wife Taramati suggested it to him, and the idea repulsed him. But he too had no choice - he needed anything to get the money he needed to pay Vishwamitra the dakshina that has to accompany the kingdom. So he first sold his wife & then himself. Fully legit. Even though he hated himself for it. And he demanded her upper garment as payment for doing his son's cremation.

Yudisthir needed to keep staking things in the hope that he'd win back what he had lost - a typical gambler's dilemma. His mistake was on not refusing to play Shakuni instead of Duryodhan, and not contesting the fact that Shakuni was cheating.

Yeah, he should have remembered that he was not just Dhritarashtra's nephew but an independent ruler. So he should have contested what he was being asked to do. How could an emperor who just successfully concluded the Rajasuya yagna be subservient to another king, even if it was his father's elder brother? In that case, Dhritarashtra should have been asked to do that yagna.

Originally posted by: SayaneeH.Lecter

Being a king he staked his country

Being a big bro he staked his brothers

Being a husband he staked his wife

Being a brother & husband never looked back to his brothers & wife falling behind him what mattered to him was reaching to heaven alive!

This is enough to judge him .. at least for me

Originally posted by: ...Diala...

SRUJAconscience

Like anyonelse I am much glad to see these explanations that you have given to have a look at Yudishtar from a different angle and it was a pleasure to read.. He is indeed Dharmaraja I have no objection in accepting. However I disagree with you because this extremely contradicts what I read in the text.

We discussed in the same thread with citations from the Bakasura episode that Yudishtar never thought of being a Tyagi. He did want to take back the Kingdom and wealth of Duryodhan for which he depended on Bhima. So he being a Tyagi is ruled out completely from what I read from there.

Saying that he considered this purely as a leisure time play with the ones he considered brothers and family members might seem appealing, emotional and applaud-able if we are talking about a novel written on him.. But this view of him is absolutely not acceptable and contradicts the text again.

This might sound unbelievable but this is the fact straight from the horses mouth not the POV of anyone else. Check the citation below. Yudishtar decided to play the game with the motive of winning Duryodhan's kingdom. The same motive that the adharmic Duryodhan had. If Dharmaraja also wished this then I could only say Duryodhan was equally dharmic in desiring Yudhishtar's kingdom. IMO, had Yudishtar won, things would have been a little better i.e the last part of the dice hall episode might have not happened.

Having said these, I repeat that these are not complaints I have against him. These are very much his attributes that I can very well accept from a Dharmic King. The ever annoying and weak image of Yudishtar that I used to have is no more. Hope this helps

[quote] Vanaparva SECTION XXXIV

Vaisampayana said, "Thus addressed by Bhimasena, the high-souled king Ajatasatru firmly devoted to truth, mustering his patience, after a few moments said these words, 'No doubt, O Bharata, all this is true. I cannot reproach thee for thy torturing me thus by piercing me with thy arrowy words. From my folly alone hath this calamity come against you. I sought to cast the dice desiring to snatch from Dhritarashtra's son his kingdom with the sovereignty. It was therefore that, that cunning gambler--Suvala's son--played against me on behalf of Suyodhana. Sakuni, a native of the hilly country, is exceedingly artful. Casting the dice in the presence of the assembly, unacquainted as I am with artifices of any kind, he vanquished me artfully."[/quote]

Originally posted by: SayaneeH.Lecter

a very thought provoking post .. I have heard a very learned scholar of Hindu Dharma to say that Duryadhana had some qualities that exceeds Dharmaraaj himself .. I guess on contrary DharmaRaja also had some qualities that was equal to Dury .. Dury's problem was his hatred towards Pandava .. may be Yudhisthir's was gambling. I can understand that. but betting brothers n wife is something you can't forget ..

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Oh, my other major reason for loathing him - him being a burden on his army. On day 11, when the Kauravas came up w/ the strategy to capture him, he should have taken practical decisions. As it was, the Pandavas were weaker, and on top of that, he became their single point of failure. That was what led to Abhimanyu's death.

Yudisthir needed to keep staking things in the hope that he'd win back what he had lost - a typical gambler's dilemma. His mistake was on not refusing to play Shakuni instead of Duryodhan, and not contesting the fact that Shakuni was cheating.

Originally posted by: smrth

Amazing post and angle. The way you described Yudhishthir's evolvement as character is a novel way to look at.

But pardon my thickness. I fail to understand the rationale. Let me clarify. I am not disliking Yudhishthir. The virtues and qualities that you attributed to him have always been noticed and admired. His encounter with Yaksha and wisdom displayed there was worth mention and admiration. That said, his actions on these two particular events we are discussing, are liable to censure.

The misgivings are these;

1) How could an act of gambling- one verified vice and resulting out of a self described weakness- be transposed into a 'knowing sacrifice'? How does it become less of an evil if played within relations (parents?! How was Dhrutrashtra connived- even if he 'invited'? He was playing against Shakuni a known baiter and Duryodhan a known murderer)? You say, Yudhishthir rose above those patty animosity. He was Ajatshatru. Does it permit discard of a discreet restrain? The lessons painfully learnt years after years- including three assassination attempts? Would forgiveness permit repeated offences. For that matter, could any vice be permitted in practice if the partakers are relations??!

2) Even more confusing, by what stretch of imagination or angle can we transpose intent and intense staking into an act of 'Tyag'? What was the compulsion? Why was he increasing the stake? To give away? Then why not renounce the claims straight away? But what is the 'stake'; the intent- to regain everything that was lost.

3) And what was he 'giving away' in later stakes? Can one 'give away' welfare, safety and freedom of other humans? Can one imperil them into 'bondage' merely because they have disposed their allegiance to him? In this case, to the very persons who have harmed them with known attempts of assassination and with continued caprice; He knows opponents are winning with 'unfair' means after which, should extension of 'brotherhood share'- because he has no animosity- still applicable? What about his duty towards those who are staked? Can we construe family's exposure to a probable annihilation as 'tyag'. Even if he was ready out of 'detachment', were others??

4) Lastly, if now pointed as 'demonstration of perils of a vice' by Vyas through this 'act', then dislike is for the 'act' only. Sorry for discordant note.

Originally posted by: ...Diala...

Can you brief me, in your words,what did Bhimasena address and what did Draupadi say earlier to Bhim and Yuddhishtir conversation.😊

Edited by SRUJAconscience - 11 years ago

Originally posted by: SRUJAconscience

@ Red,

No Sorry dear friend!I see you're satisfied with this reasoning.😊