A shameful victory for Pandavas - Page 4

Originally posted by: Ashwini_D

Thank you for pointing out that the Pandavas were no saints either. While I agree with the core of your post, IMO this very righteousness of the Pandavas is put into question by their resort to treachery-to gain victory by hook or by crook, regardless of whether it is achieved by fair or unfair means. No doubt they were fighting for a righteous cause, a cause where they sought justice for themselves and avenged the wrongs done to them, albeit a personal one and one that was achieved at what cost? Was justice to the Pandavas worth all the suffering and loss of lives in the end?

No reference to your post- I think the Mahabharata does not provide any definitive answers on whether the means are justified by the end-or in this case whether or not those great warriors died in vain, and that is it's greatest strength as a piece of literature, reflecting the conflicts and dilemmas we still face today in the 21st century. After the war, one gets the impression (IMO) by the widespread destruction, suffering and loss, that the war did more harm than good.

Originally posted by: sanayabarunlove

Kurukshetra was fought for the greater good and all we can see is two families fighting for a throne and seeking revenge against eachother!

Originally posted by: Ashwini_D

Thank you for pointing out that the Pandavas were no saints either. While I agree with the core of your post, IMO this very righteousness of the Pandavas is put into question by their resort to treachery-to gain victory by hook or by crook, regardless of whether it is achieved by fair or unfair means. No doubt they were fighting for a righteous cause, a cause where they sought justice for themselves and avenged the wrongs done to them, albeit a personal one and one that was achieved at what cost? Was justice to the Pandavas worth all the suffering and loss of lives in the end?

No reference to your post- I think the Mahabharata does not provide any definitive answers on whether the means are justified by the end-or in this case whether or not those great warriors died in vain, and that is it's greatest strength as a piece of literature, reflecting the conflicts and dilemmas we still face today in the 21st century. After the war, one gets the impression (IMO) by the widespread destruction, suffering and loss, that the war did more harm than good.

Why do we keep forgetting the trials of the pandavas post war...a country full of widows n orphaned children is all they got. They were n still r blamed for the aftermath...they also lost their children n loved ones in war..why is their grief neglected...

I second your thoughts devu

Originally posted by: devashree_h

I don't know why Pandavas are blamed for the large scale destruction. Yudhi was ready to have five villages and keep quiet. Heck the normally volatile Bhim was ready to let go his revenge for peace. Whose ego and stubbornness was it that caused the war? The large scale destrutction was also because each King had his personal vendetta to be taken care of.

Each side broke rule to have victory. Nothing shameless in that. They were in it to win it.

when i mean greater good, i don't intend to talk about a war that happened between brothers. there was destruction yes, may lives were lost yes, but one can't possibly say the people haven't lived a better life under yudhishtir when he ascended the throne. that is the problem with the epic. it emphasises on the lamentations of the pandavas, krishna never instigated the war for their benefit. he instigated the war for a better future which the kauravas obviously couldn't give.

Originally posted by: sanayabarunlove

when i mean greater good, i don't intend to talk about a war that happened between brothers. there was destruction yes, may lives were lost yes, but one can't possibly say the people haven't lived a better life under yudhishtir when he ascended the throne. that is the problem with the epic. it emphasises on the lamentations of the pandavas, krishna never instigated the war for their benefit. he instigated the war for a better future which the kauravas obviously couldn't give.

this is something which I don't know how to explain! I don't think it was shameful. it was a war. in a war I am of perception u fight to win or kill. yes rules were broken, but we are the same people who say are bhad me jaye rules agar sahi ka sath dena ho. we are same people who say aisa kaun sa slave dharm tha ki pandav apni patni ki raksha hetu bhi khade ni huye. secondly abt killing via deception I really wonder many things. (plz note I am not blaming anyone) . in case of bheeshma did not he know? was he really ignorant that shikhandini will b brought in front? abt drona(I donot like how he was killed) , he was really such weak hearted person and thought his son can't die? if he knew he can't die then why he even believed? and if ashwi could really die then how he hoped that in the war he won't lose his son? though I really dislike how he was beheaded. abt karna death time, before many times in war warrior used to abandon chariots and go on other chariots but on that fateful day no one came to extend helping hand to supreme commander of army? why? the whole battle karna was fighting alone where everyone from kaurava side had gone? on a drink break? these are few questions which I try to find answer of? if someone can enlighten me plz do?

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

i agree i am not doubting krishna ji's support to them they deserved krishna ji's support but my point was if we are talking about muteness during VH then almost all male character's of mahabharat need to take blame for that that is all

yes pandavas did repent but still VH will remain a mistake of their's right.That is all i am saying is during VH everyone except draupadi were wrong