Mahabharat Episode Discussion Thread # 18

First Previous

Page

117

Next Last

Frequent Posters

bheegi

@bheegi

Stunner

+ 5

Posted: 11 years ago

#651

Originally posted by: AnuMP
I missed a great discussion it seems

please jump right in...it's still going on

Quote

Arijit

@Arijit007

Sparkler

Posted: 11 years ago

#652

hmm, after all it depends on your POV, i guess, both interpretions of dharma are correct i guess, btw, in geeta the lord had said,
yad yad aacharati shresthasvadevetarojanah,
sah yat pramaanam kurute
lokastad anuvartate.
meaning: whatever acts a great man performes , others follow on his footsteps. and whatever standerds he sets by his exemplary acts, all the world persue.
this shloka, is similer to what govind said to his sakhi in today's epi.

Edited by Arijit007 - 11 years ago

Quote

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

bheegi

@bheegi

Stunner

+ 5

Posted: 11 years ago

#653

Originally posted by: Arijit007
hmm, after all it depends on your POV, i guess, both interpretions of dharma are correct i guess, btw, in geeta the lord had said,
yad yad aacharati shresthasvadevetarojanah,
sah yat pramaanam kurute
lokastad anuvartate.
this shloka, is similer to what govind said to his sakhi in today's epi.

Can you translate it please? Thanks Arijit

Quote

Sabhayata

@Sabhayata

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 11 years ago

#654

@bheegi i am not even arguing that this is not a dharma yudh it is dharam yudh for several reasons

1)Righteous side won.Pandavas who had been wronged finally prevailed

2)Panadavs and panchli got their justice

3)We got geeta gyana and several other learnings from this war

so yes war of righteousness i agree

but i dont agree with what ⭐️krishna said today that all aryavrata kings were evil and hence had to die so that soceity can be better

because firstly in the epic krishna ji doesn't even say anything remotely close to this and secondly there is nothing in the epic that indicates all kings were evil

even duryodhan wasn't an evil king even in his death celestial showered flowers on his gandharavas sang songs and his soul ascended to heaven

and later in the heaven even god's tell yudhistir that except what he did with panadvas dury preformed his other duties well

which makes it hard for me to believe that entire aryavarta was full of evil kings

Edited by Sabhayata - 11 years ago

Quote

divyasn

@divyasn

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#655

AnuMP , u had asked me abt Bharathaparyatanam book rt ? I have finished 3 chapters and it justs stands way higher ...It is a well thought of and researched analysis .It is not a passive read. Like nahabharatha .. this book needs ur full concentration and attention ,and we need to carefully read to get the real essence ...

A big big salute to the author Kuttikrishna marar ...

You should definitely give it a try ...

Quote

bheegi

@bheegi

Stunner

+ 5

Posted: 11 years ago

#656

Okay, I am breaking all rules of EDT by posting citations from elsewhere but I don't want to go to DV thread as our discussion is relevant here...

This is what GurCharan Das says about dharma in MB: I think a lot of real discussion about real meaning of dharma happens in the post war sections of MB..and that too via Yudi

The Mahabharata offers us a meaningful ideal of civic virtue in its exposition of the dharma of the king. Yudhishthira has an abiding sense of the tragic. While striving for rationality, he senses the underlying irrationality of human existence. Having discarded the conventional sva-dharma of society, he is on a lonely search for true dharma. This leads him to Jajali, whose story reawakens the impartial spectator' within him, and he says: Dharma is recognized by men [to be] the ancient [quality of] compassion for the welfare of all creatures.' Thus, he arrives at the moral point of view"that is, an ability to think beyond oneself. By choosing to live in a certain way, Yudhishthira has offered us an answer that might shield us against the tragic vulnerability of life in our uneven' world. Despite its dark, chaotic theme, and despite ironic reminders about how difficult it is to be good, the Mahabharata is able to snatch victory in the character of its un-hero', Yudhishthira. He teaches us that it is part of the human condition to also aspire. He shows that it is possible for good to triumph even in a time of cosmic destructiveness', making us realize that the theme of the Mahabharata is not war but peace.64 The king who weeps with all creatures' demonstrates through his example that the epic's refrain"dharma leads to victory'"is not merely an ironic hope.65 I may not care for the ascetic streak in his character, but I do believe that ascetics rarely cause the mayhem and violence that conventional heroes do. Yudhishthira demonstrates that an act of goodness might be one of the very few things of genuine worth in this world.

Das, Gurcharan (2010-09-03). The Difficulty of Being Good:On the Subtle Art of Dharma (Kindle Locations 5542-5555). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Quote

divyasn

@divyasn

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#657

Originally posted by: Sabhayata
@bheegi i am not even arguing that this is not a dharma yudh it is dharam yudh for several reasons

1)Righteous side won.Pandavas who had been wronged finally prevailed

2)Panadavs and panchli got their justice

3)We got geeta gyana and several other learnings from this war

so yes war of righteousness i agree

but i dont agree with what ⭐️krishna said today that all aryavrata kings were evil and hence had to die so that soceity can be better

because firstly in the epic krishna ji doesn't even say anything remotely close to this and secondly there is nothing in the epic that indicates all kings were evil

even duryodhan wasn't an evil king even in his death celestial showered flowers on his gandharavas sang songs and his soul ascended to heaven

and later in the heaven even god's tell yudhistir that except what he did with panadvas dury preformed his other duties well

which makes it hard for me to believe that entire aryavarta was full of evil kings

All Aryavartha kings being evil and they need to be destroyed theory doesnt stand strong ...
Else why Rukmi would have been spared ...

It was kshathriya duty to do war , thats why all Rajas took part in the war , else it would have been a question mark on their dignity ... they just chose sides according to their preferences ...

Quote

bheegi

@bheegi

Stunner

+ 5

Posted: 11 years ago

#658

@Sabhyata...I agree Dury was not as bad a king as has been portrayed in this version. However, if I recall correctly, establishing the right moral code and cleansing the earth of the corrupt Kshatriyas was one of the goals of the Krishna avatar.

I know Krishna named many kings today- including Panchala king and not all were bad but I think SP is just trying to make a point. When leaders are corrupt, the praja also becomes corrupt. They are probably trying to extrapolate it to the current situation in our society

@Arijit- thanks for the translation. You are right- that shloka you've posted was implied in today's dialogue

Edited by bheegi - 11 years ago

Quote

Ashwini_D

@Ashwini_D

Navigator

Posted: 11 years ago

#659

Originally posted by: bheegi
A few days ago, there was segment on new nation where they interviewed a few women about this version of MB. What struck me was that even though some of them had watched the older version of the MB on TV, they loved the interpretations and in depth analysis of this version. While, I might not agree with every interpretation or analysis in this version (like a lot of you), I do commend Siddharth Tewary and his team for sending the clear message : The Mahabharat happened to establish dharma. The way they have explained dharma in this version, is a very effective and universal interoperation. That dharma is what's right for the largest sections of the society is their biggest message and if sections of society like the women in the interview the other day, can take this as the primary message of the MB, then ST and his team deserves accolades.

Even though the message was repetitive, I think it needed to be said loud and clear again. After all the unfair means shown to attain victory and finger pointing at Draupadi as the cause of the war, today's episode was much needed to give the big picture interpretation of this epic.

I loved Krishna today. Every word he said and every question Draupadi asked didn't leave room for misconceptions today.

I think it depends on how we define dharma. Does the Mahabharata say Duryodhan's or Dhritarashtra's rule was chaotic and unjust? I fail to see how the world of Aryavarta became a better place due to the war. How does one determine what's best for the largest sections of the society?

Leaving aside the spiritual references and underpinnings of the text-doesn't the Mahabharata itself have evidence about how the 'greater good' can be murky territory? Arjun and Krishna annihilate Khandavprastha, massacring the native beings of the region as a favour for Agni. This act catches up with them when Ashwasen tries to avenge his parents's deaths by trying to kill Arjun during the war. The burning down of Khandavprastha has lasting repercussions in the epic, with the conflict being stretched till the snake sacrifice where the story of the Mahabharata is narrated.

I am not trying to paint a demeaning picture of the Pandavas here, merely pointing out that there is a very thin line between the greater good and the vested interests of a particular community/group/people, sometimes there is no line at all.

As I have argued before, justice to the Pandavas cannot constitute as 'greater good' in my opinion.

The above picture is very much true of reality as well. While the allies were the victors of the world war II and are seen as the 'good guys' in comparison to the Axis powers, but the fact remains that they too weren't entirely righteous. For example Britain's exploitation of it's colonies. One can even argue that they had double standards.

I think the idea of establishing dharma can be quite simplistic in this sense. If establishing dharma means establishing a new world order, without the normative implication, then it would make sense.

Edited by Ashwini_D - 11 years ago