Like or Dislike Yudhishtir/ VB Nt pg 22

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Poll

What's your take on Yudhishtir?

Frequent Posters

Mythili

@mythili2

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#51

Originally posted by: Ddiala
Welcome Rushika.. 😃
Just noticed.. Nakul is considered elder of the twins right.. Here Yudi takes the youngest first order but staked Nakul first.. Why?

That is what he thinks.. Or no that is how it was.. everything is King's property.. Noted he excluded Brahmins and their wealth??.. Probably because they were above Kshatriyas.. Caste system seems to have been very vital those days 🤢

oh it was too much🤢 .. i didnt realise before tat he staked citizens n their wealth too.. he was too much addited to dyuth 🤢 ..

and this great drithrastra eventhough knowing wat his sons r upto and aft gandhari warning him tat it will bring destruction and nt to call pandavas again fr the game he calld them🤢.. worst ppl.. wat sort of kings🥱..

Quote

RosChel.Lobster

@RosChel.Lobster

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

#52

Originally posted by: Ddiala
Welcome Rushika.. 😃
Just noticed.. Nakul is considered elder of the twins right.. Here Yudi takes the youngest first order but staked Nakul first.. Why? May b he just randomly chose Nakul first as they Nakul n Sahdev were twins 😕

That is what he thinks.. Or no that is how it was.. everything is King's property.. Noted he excluded Brahmins and their wealth??.. Probably because they were above Kshatriyas.. Caste system seems to have been very vital those days 🤢

caste system is still very much prominent these days 🤢

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

ThePirateKing

@ThePirateKing

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#53

A good poll, but I don't think I will choose any option.

I generally feel some sympathy for him. He had a tough childhood. While he himself seems to be of the milder type, he had to contend with an ambitious mother.

Regarding the Dyut I think he failed to read Dhritarashtra's mind. Yudi saw Dhri as a father figure and not another king. Yudi had done the Rajsuya and hence was actually independent of Dhri and could have said no atleast the second time.

Balarama was partially right, when in he said in Virata's kingdom that Yudi had staked his kingdom willingly and hence could not ask for it back as a matter of right. If he knew Sakuni was cheating he could have easily said no to the second game of dice.

Quote

Diala D

@...Diala...

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#54

Originally posted by: Rushika
May b he just randomly chose Nakul first as they Nakul n Sahdev were twins 😕

caste system is still very much prominent these days 🤢

May be.. 😃

and pinching truth..

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 11 years ago

#55

Originally posted by: Rushika
Bang on Vrish 👏 Now this post is definitely out of the blues n is not of the regular reasons...would really love to read other reasons too...that will b quite enlightening 😊 But 1 question to u so do u think Yudhishtir had a right to stake his wife n brothers just coz dey belonged to him? Just wanna know ur Point of View on it 😊

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.

Originally posted by: -Shruti
Dharmaraja got tagged to him as he was the son of Dharmaraja. IMO Karma is greater than birth. At first he staked himself and lost. So technically he had lost his right on himself. How could he stake his brothers and common wife then? This is something I never understood. None of his brothers spoke while they were being staked...neither be bothered to seek their advice. So here he acted as a very weak man, not Dharmaraja.

Now coming to the question, I'm neutral 😆
Because...I don't love anyone...other than Bheeshma.
But there are a few men/women I hate.

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)

Originally posted by: Ddiala
No no not in exchange.. These were staked before the Pandavas and Draupadi.. Somewhat in this order..

Gold, Gems, Jewels etc
Chariots, weapons etc
Das & Dasis
Elephants
Cars and Animals
repeats more valuable jewels etc
Citizens and their wealth
Nakula, Sahadeva, Arjuna, Bhima, Self & Draupadi

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.

Originally posted by: CapeBuffalo
A good poll, but I don't think I will choose any option.
I generally feel some sympathy for him. He had a tough childhood. While he himself seems to be of the milder type, he had to contend with an ambitious mother.

Regarding the Dyut I think he failed to read Dhritarashtra's mind. Yudi saw Dhri as a father figure and not another king. Yudi had done the Rajsuya and hence was actually independent of Dhri and could have said no atleast the second time.

Balarama was partially right, when in he said in Virata's kingdom that Yudi had staked his kingdom willingly and hence could not ask for it back as a matter of right. If he knew Sakuni was cheating he could have easily said no to the second game of dice.

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.

Edited by .Vrish. - 11 years ago

Quote

RosChel.Lobster

@RosChel.Lobster

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

#56

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, 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.

now this is astonishing he felt bad for Gandhari n Dhrit...such a moron 🤢 I agree with you on this completely with you 😊 Was he such a complex person or its just me who feels that it is difficult to understand his deeds 😕

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 11 years ago

#57

Just completed my previous post - was busy updating from all the responses!

Quote

halfbloodprince

@Wistfulness

Achiever

+ 8

Posted: 11 years ago

#58

Originally posted by: mythili2

yeah rushi..u r right... i dnt like them too bt drithrastra i hate him the most becoz drona n bheeshma were bound by duty to the throne..but drithrastra wat was he doing? sleeping?? he was king ..he s sooo stupid ..he can do nything bt still kept quite..he a big looser according to me🤢..
ps: sorry if i hurt anyone its just my POV..

Dhrit's responsibility increases more because he was the king, the supreme man there. Also, he only ordered Yudhisthira to play being well aware of the happenings.

Quote

Diala D

@...Diala...

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#59

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

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 out 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.

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.

Yes and that is why it is not to debate whether staking wife is a shameful act or not.. either he was completely wrong or completely right.. The problem is he never thought of being witty.. He is someone who thinks looking for loopholes is Adharma.. His problem..

He was proud of his skill in the game and he also din't miss a chance to boast his wealth during the game he was badly loosing..

Draupadi in turn was just witty in posting those two questions.. but that was not really a catch 22.. whether the last round of rolling happened or not, she was indeed a slave of Duryodhan because all her 5 husbands (owners) were slaves.. Actually Duryodhan/Shakuni has to be appreciated for giving an extra chance for Yudi to play with something that was not his property anymore..

About other wives, they were to be considered slaves too but Dury and Co were not interested in humiliating them..

Edited by Ddiala - 11 years ago