Questions seeking answers - questions updated

Originally posted by: hpenz4evr

Hi dear beloved members,

I would like put before u all some questions from our Mahabharata (points which are difficult for me to understand by myself), it would be nice if we are able to find some good answers (i know - there are never going just one simple answer😉)

First of all- wonderful questions and I'm not sure I will have all the answers but I will attempt (to best of my ability without offending anyone)

Q1.

Who should be blamed for draupadi's vastra haran - Yudhistr for selling her or duryodhan/dushassan for harassing her - who was at greater fault (note: whether one repented for their action is not the question here) - which is the bigger crime - selling a wife or to strip a woman?

I think everyone but Draupadi (except maybe Vidur and to some extent Vikarna) was wrong that day. The offenders, the silent husbands and the onlookers-everyone was wrong. It was everyone's misplaced sense of righteousness that was at fault.

Q2.

Was Bhism really to be blamed for amba's fate, wat about her alleged lover- whose mistake was it?

In those days (Dvaaparyug) if a man (here Kshatriya dharm) abducted a woman or refused to accept a woman after she had been insulted like Amba at the swaymvar, it was considered very non Kshatriya like to not accept her. No man would accept a woman once she had been rejected so Amba was in a very precarious situation. Again, Bhishma prioritized his own dharm over the honor of a woman's self respect. Her lover (Shalva?) was a coward IMO and not worthy of a woman as strong as Amba anyways

Q3.

Why did pandu with his wives and sons did not return to hastinapur before his death? did pandu ever want pandavas to become kings of hastinapur?

I think Pandu had started following the path of renunciation when he was in exile. If I recall, even Krishna criticized Pandu (in SP) for renouncing the crown and living life as a hermit because that was against his Kshatriya dharma of ruling his kingdom...

Q4.

Why does kunti not reveal to pandu about karna (or try to search or just confirm his death - she knew with his kavach he would not be dead) while she is ready to reveal to pandu about durvasas mantra - like wise satyavati is ready to reveal about vyasa to bhisma (both satyavati and kunti were faced with dilemma of their respective generation being childless)

Kunti was a Kshatriya woman and I think for an upper caste woman, it was considered a sin or a tabboo to have pre marital relations. IMO, she would have told Pandu after her marriage with him but I think she lacked the courage or maybe feared abandonment by Pandu. Satyavati was a lower caste woman (a fisherwoman) and it was not unusual for them to have premarital relationships. Also, she was in a dire situation with no heir for HP after her sons died. Perhaps, that's why she had the courage to reveal the truth and invite VV to do Niyoga.

Q5

What is the significance of the name 'kauravas' while i understand pandavas meant sons of pandas?

I think it's derived from the word 'Kuru' For that matter, even the Pandavs were Kurus but perhaps to differentiate between the cousins, they came up with two names.

Q6

Why only Arjun (during the commencement of battle) is suffering from conflict between fighting his relatives - what about other pandavas -esp yudi was he not supposed to be the epitome of dharma?

Arjuna represents the typical man or nar IMO- a man who is good at heart, obedient and willing to surrender to elders and revered people. He also represents the typical man who has insecurities and anxieties before performing a task. That's why Krishna chose Arjuna IMO- he represents the goodness in all of us but also someone who is willing to learn and use that knowledge to achieve his goals. A person like Bhima would never have that dilemma because he was always sure of his goals. Yudhi had already come to terms with the war after paying penance in exile, in the company of seers and discussions in Udyog Parva.

Thanks in advance - i hope for an interesting post!

Originally posted by: hpenz4evr

Hi dear beloved members,

I would like put before u all some questions from our Mahabharata (points which are difficult for me to understand by myself), it would be nice if we are able to find some good answers (i know - there are never going just one simple answer😉)

Q1.

Who should be blamed for draupadi's vastra haran - Yudhistr for selling her or duryodhan/dushassan for harassing her - who was at greater fault (note: whether one repented for their action is not the question here) - which is the bigger crime - selling a wife or to strip a woman?

As per the social norms of the Dwapara Yuga the head of the family had absolute rights over his family members.

Now we find it outrageous today, we may find it reprehensible- but whether we agree or not -that was the rule in those days. Raja Harishchandra of the Ikshavaku dynasty sold his wife in an open market.

Even after the VH, no one questioned the validity of Yudhishthira's right over his brothers. What was questioned was Yudhishthira's right over Drauapdi after he had lost himself.

This is what Drauapdi orders the Pratikramin to ask Yudishthira in the Sabha " Kasya eesho na parajaipiriti ..." Whose master were at the time when I was lost (by you) "

Shortly thereafter Bhima too comments that even seasoned gamblers do not stake their women due to kindness, pity concern etc. But the point here is, such a gambler has the right but does not enforce it due to kindness concern pity etc.

Outrageous though it may seem today, Yudi was indeed well within his rights to stake his family members. It was only after he lost himself that he staked and lost Drauapdi- and it was then that the legality of his lordship over Draupadi became the topic of debate in the Sabha. Had Yudi staked Draupadi before himself, no one would have questioned.

What Yudi certainly did not anticipate was the barbaric treatment meted out to Draupadi by his cousins.

Now please do not take up your cudgels against me. I do not condone Yudi's act of staking nor his order to Drauapdi to appear in the Sabha. My analysis above is based solely on the values prevalent in this days.


Q2.

Was Bhism really to be blamed for amba's fate, wat about her alleged lover- whose mistake was it?

Q3.

Why did pandu with his wives and sons did not return to hastinapur before his death? did pandu ever want pandavas to become kings of hastinapur?

Pandu - after being cursed by Rishi Kindama- abdicated the throne and retired to the forests. Hence, as per the law, Pandu's children too had no claim over the throne.

The throne would have automatically gone to Pandu's yonger brother- had he had one. But Pandu's only brother Dritarashtra was blind and automatically disqualifiled from the kingship. And hence his decendants too.

Now this was a unique precedent in the Kuru royal family - when none of the younger generation had any claim over the throne. After pandu's death Dhrit became a titular head but was never officially coronated.

The way out for Bhishma would have been to look for someone outside the Kuru family to become the king but naturally he did not want to do that and instead setttled for a via medial solution of dividing the kingdom.

During Pandu's lifetime, there would have been no reason for him to return to Hastinapura since he had relinquished his rights to the throne. Moreover the spiritual and yogic atmosphere of the forests would have been more condusive for his practice of celibacy




Q4.

Why does kunti not reveal to pandu about karna (or try to search or just confirm his death - she knew with his kavach he would not be dead) while she is ready to reveal to pandu about durvasas mantra - like wise satyavati is ready to reveal about vyasa to bhisma (both satyavati and kunti were faced with dilemma of their respective generation being childless)

Satyavati cannot be compared to Kunti here. Satyavati's son from rishi Parashara - though born out of wedlock - was publicly accepted by his father . Satyavti did not fear any social stigma or taboo regarding her first born son. This has nothing to do with the fact that she was a fisher woman or a woman of a lower class.

Why Kunti did not reveal - no one will ever know. Vyasa did not deem it necessary to inform us

Thanks in advance - i hope for an interesting post!

Originally posted by: hpenz4evr

Thanks for your thoughts. Nice to get well penned replies. But still I require more clarity from you all

Q1.

Both dury and Yudhi were to be blamed equally does not answer my question (its a very diplomatic answer, i agree) but still i would request all of you to answer from your hearts - chose any one yudi or dury- the seller or stripper?

its very difficult to choose since both r sinners...let me ask u a question...at night u keep ur door open because cool breeze is blowing outside but u hv been prewarned that a thief is on the run and can enter any house at night...u hv been warned to lock all doors yet u keep the door open to get the breeze...now at night the thief comes and robs u...naturally u will go to police and ask for the thief to get caught...but wasnt it ur responsibility in the first place to protect ur house especially since u were prewarned...of course the thief is the criminal here but u actually helped him to steal...although this example is well below the definition of sin...but i guess it explains the fact that yudi knew very well that kauravas and shakuni had evil intentions...wen they were provoking him to continue to play in spite of his losing in every turn yudi shud hv realized they hv ulterior motive...wen eventually draupadi was left and they were provoking him to place her as bet he then and there shud hv known that the evil ppl hv evil intentions in mind...come on guys...yudi may not hv guessed that she wud be disrobed in a court full of men...but some kind of dishonor wud be in store that he shud hv guessed...if not disrobing then rape at night...is there any difference...if i am to choose then i will choose yudi as the principle culprit...if he wudnt hv sold draupadi then the stripping wud never hv hapnd...so yudi is guilty of 2 crimes...one is selling his wife and second is disrobing of draupadi...yes he did not himself disrobe her but he was the reason y dushasana got the chance to disrobe...
frankly i always blame the so called good people who provide the opportunity for the evil ppl to prevail...the evil r evil and that is not hidden (it was not hidden from pandavas that kauravas r evil)...so watever they will do will be evil so y blame them for any one activity...

Q2.

was not the punishment to bhism way above the mistake/injustice (if any) committed by him to amba? was really his mistake so great that amba had reincarnate herself?

it is not easy to say how much a mistake weighs...that depends on the individual who is the victim...for bhism amba could not marry and during those days life was very difficult for unmarried women...and also if u read ramayana and mahabharata then u wud see every character who has cursed or taken revenge hv done so for the slightest reasons...in epics characters curse like we bless...

Q3.

I got answers for my second part of the question - but if Pandu did indeed want yudi to be crown prince and later king- as soon as he or all the pandavas were born why he did not come back to HP? A lot of confusions would have been avoided - hell even the epic battle would never happened😲 considering the way he died (due to his actions of lust against the curse) i dont think he was living as a hermit 🤢

this can be answered by those who hv read the epic well...but i guess the answer is in ur question itself...if pandu wud hv come back then the epic battle would never hv hapnd...thatz wat u said and that is the answer...the battle had to happen...mahabharat is written for that only...so my answer is if pandu wud hv returned then there wud hv been no MB...and if there wud hv been no MB then there wud hv been no pandu and no questions like this 😉😆

Q4.

Was it cowardice on part of kunti or just well played politics (even satyavathi played politics using shantanu - her father - bhisma- vyasa- her bahus etc)

i wud say plain cowardice...i cant guess wat politics can it be...satyavathi had chance for politics but i dont see how for kunti...

Q5

the term kauravas simply cannot mean kuru princes as only the hundred sons of gandhri and dhri were called kauravas but the entire pandava kaurava were 'kuru' being descendants of king puru - son of yayati.

as someone already said the names r gvn mainly to distinguish btwn the two groups of brothers...

Q6.

If yudi had indeed accepted the battle and its consequences then why when he was devastated after the battle and refused to be crowned as king (he even hints at going vanavasa)

because yudi always wanted to remain mahaan...

Originally posted by: adoremevirgo

really gud qs by TM and equally gud answers by sunny...

"Yudhishtir didn't doubt the whole situation that was Kurukshetra, I just think Krishna thought he was a waste of his time and energy. 😆 Arjuna was their star and when the main player had doubts, problems could stem and hence Krishna needed to boost the guy." 👍🏼