'Mahabharat- Different Versions -Perspectives' - Page 72

Originally posted by: AnuMP

Ashwini


My question remains. If all the Pandavas were doing was to follow existing law and treated their women and subjects no better than any of the other nobles, then what exactly is it that makes Yudhishtir great?


Book learning alone does not greatness make

Hmm, that I can accept. He was called Dharma Raj because of his adherence to the accepted practices. But the rest of the hyperbole where his chariot was half an inch off the ground, the idea that the infamous half-truth was his only sin and that he was a benevolent saint, that's what I don't understand. He was better than the rest, but no visionary. Which is what I was trying to say in my previous post- that he was an adequate royal whereas the others could be evil.


Re: Draupadis lack of clout with the Pandavas, I completely agree with you. Even after all that Arjun silently allowed to happen, he did not want to go to war. Yudhishtir and the twins were indifferent at best. But Draupadi had clout where it really counted and she used it with both of them

Originally posted by: Ashwini_D

I agree with Basu sir here- Yudi was probably given the 'Dharmaraj' title precisely because he adhered to 'dharma' as was defined by those times. But he had other exemplary qualities too which have been mentioned before. He was definitely better than the likes of Jarasandha- who had violated the kshatriya COC and was planning to sacrifice kings whose kingdoms he had usurped.

Same is the case with Duryodhan- not only did he trespass boundaries of accepted morality of today's times, but also those of dwapar yug.

Originally posted by: AnuMP

Hmm, that I can accept. He was called Dharma Raj because of his adherence to the accepted practices. But the rest of the hyperbole where his chariot was half an inch off the ground, the idea that the infamous half-truth was his only sin and that he was a benevolent saint, that's what I don't understand. He was better than the rest, but no visionary. Which is what I was trying to say in my previous post- that he was an adequate royal whereas the others could be evil.


Re: Draupadis lack of clout with the Pandavas, I completely agree with you. Even after all that Arjun silently allowed to happen, he did not want to go to war. Yudhishtir and the twins were indifferent at best. But Draupadi had clout where it really counted and she used it with both of them

Originally posted by: bheegi

I agree with @Sabhyata...Yudhishtra's repentance and his remorse throughout the vanaparva and then after the war make him the dharmaraj (in the true sense) by the end of the epic. He made mistakes but as @Abhijit sir mentioned- blessed are those who mourn. In a way, it's a good lesson for us mortals. Only if he had shown more compassion for his wife too...I'd have respected him more :)

Just like Sabhyata, I'm curious to read how Krishna Uday Shankar justifies Dharma's victory in book 3. So far, Suyodhana seems like a better king in her book. What makes Suyodhana turn evil or rather stubborn/greedy?

@Krishna

First of all, contrary to what it may seem, most of us remain friends. We just have a tendency to hold strong opinions 😆


I didn't know that part about Arjun speaking up. So thx.


I do have questions about Syyodhan though in AC. AFAIK, he was part of the Lakshagarh incident and did plan DS but not VH. In AC he comes across as a just man, kind hearted even. He can't have been as black as he has been painted, but is there any basis to thinking he was basically buffeted about by his father's ambitions and Dushys / Karnas plotting?


I have the same Q as Sabhayata - will we get a Bheem POV given that he played such a large role in the war? And perhaps he was the only one fighting mainly for Panchali?


With re: conversational style, most of us try to be on our best behavior on this thread only because we have authors here. Try the first page of Reliving MB thread (http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4135758). There is a glossary of terms used by MB posters. Ought to be worth a laugh or two. That will show you exactly how reverential we are. I wouldn't worry about not sounding scholarly.

Originally posted by: AnuMP

@Krishna

First of all, contrary to what it may seem, most of us remain friends. We just have a tendency to hold strong opinions 😆


I didn't know that part about Arjun speaking up. So thx.


I do have questions about Syyodhan though in AC. AFAIK, he was part of the Lakshagarh incident and did plan DS but not VH. In AC he comes across as a just man, kind hearted even. He can't have been as black as he has been painted, but is there any basis to thinking he was basically buffeted about by his father'a ambitions and Dushys / Karnas plotting?


I have the same Q as Sabhayata - will we get a Bheem POV given that he played such a large role in the war? And perhaps he was the only one fighting mainly for Panchali?


With re: conversational style, most of us try to be on our best behavior on this thread. Try the first page of Reliving MB thread. There is a glossary of terms used by MB posters. Ought to be worth a laugh or two. That will show you exactly how reverential we are. I wouldn't worry about not sounding scholarly.

Ok, about that Telugu book which people are trying to ban. What is the offensive stuff? I am told it portrays Drau in a bad light, but how? There have been others like that and no one tries to ban those. So now my imagination is going crazy and I really want to know.


There is no English translation, so any Telugus here, can you give us a summary?


Ashwini PMed you

Originally posted by: KrisUdayasankar

@Sabhyata and @Bheegi

My first reaction is to be a total drama-queen and say "wait for the book, its almost out". But then, your question is too intriguing to so treat!

There are two aspects here:

1. Was it really Dharma's victory? Wasn't he also but an instrument/ part of a greater process of revolution?

2. We have this ethical expectation from the MBh where we think that if someone wins they have to be 'the good guys' - but allowing for the argument that MBh is not idealized myth, but more of a history - reality doesn't impose such moral expectations. The 'bad guys' could easily have won.

Note: I must clarify here that I use 'good' and 'bad' very loosely - I strongly believe that these are very limited and pejorative words that do little justice to human complexity.

Look forward to both your responses on this :)

Originally posted by: bheegi

I had posted the citation a few pages back. This is the POV held in the book by Julian Woods. According to him, Bhishma lived like a Brahmin sage because he was unattached to worldly pleasures but in reality he shunned his kshatriya dharma as a result😕