let's discuss the biggest epic ever: MAHABHARAT

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#71

Personally I don't believe that ends justify means. Means are as important as the ends, perhaps more. When you take the wrong means you end up corrupting the ends as well, even if you don't realize on the run. Its sort of a butterfly effect. Almost all of the most infamous tyrants on earth actually started out with greater good in mind, but they were so certain of the righteousness of their cause that they never took account of the means they were adopting. I think same is the case with Mahabharat as well. It ended up with complete annihilation of all sides, including the Yadavas who mostly stayed away from the conflict. The purported Dharmayuga never materialized.

In the end I think Yudhishtir, and not Krishna, is the only character who actually had greater good in his heart. Krishna never really wanted peace. He deliberately hurt Duryodhan's ego in Hastinapur by turning down his hospitality and then berated him publicly, ensuring that he would never agree to even the proposal of 5 villages. But Yudhishtir was always the man who understood the futility of the war, both before as well as after its culmination.

Quote

246851

Hibernated

Posted: 11 years ago

#72

Originally posted by: -Aarya-
@RTH, @charminggenie, @LeadNitrate

I agree to disagree :)

The real question here is crime justified? For example, let's take Krishna into consideration, he always talked about dharma and adharma, but during the war, he used deceit to kill most of the great warriors, did he not practice what he taught? In this case how can he do adharma to establish dharma...

thats okay, it was pleasure debating you 😳

Let me try to put down what I understand

crime is not justified.

but what is crime and what is justice or punishment?

When your country is attacked say, should you not fight back and kill the invaders , drive them away by any means or should you debate if it is crime or not.

krishna using deceit:

He was teaching all of them and us a lesson.

one cannot lead a life by the law of jungle ( might is right, taking what is not their by deceit or by force) and then expect to end their life by law of dharma equal chance. if you live by law of jungle, you would die by it, no matter how you try to avert it

krishna here can be a symbolic representation of justice of time/world

When dharma was in question, they stuck to their petty dharma and gave tacit support to unfairness, actively conspired to it too.

Three of them, Bheesma, drona and karna were taught by parasuram, another of Vishnu's avatar. The lesson given was sacred, to be used to uphold justice and fairness.

Bheesma used his to bind himself to a throne by pledge, which had him witness one of the most appalling crime of society, molestation and attempted rape.

Drona used his for his greed and petty revenge against drupad, which started off a cyclle.

karna used his to support his best friend, even when the said friend was not right.

So as krishna, Vishnu ruthlessly plotted death of these 3.

One dies after suffering so many arrows of sorrowness, seeing his own dynasty descend in madness, so many women widowed, children orpahned.

one dies after suffering the biggest insult to himself. on 14 night and 15 day Drona was using divyastra to elminate common foot soldiers who had no protection against him, he forgot all rules and humanity. He died in hands of his student ( he had taken Dhri as his student even though he knew of the destiny) on hearing the fake news of his son's death , from the mouth of the one person he knew could never lie

karna died, when he was not even armed, trying to raise his chariot wheel.

Each of them represent strength and righteousness which stands aside, despite their ability , when naturw/mother earth/society is raped and molested.

Each died a death no one would wish for.

But does that mean this cruelty did not exact it prices? It did, for all the pandavas and even krishna.

There comes another lesson, even when u r fighting a war or using violence for a good cause, you have to pay the price.

To eradicate evil is not easy, no matter how good ur intentions are, you have to pay a price

Quote

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

246851

Hibernated

Posted: 11 years ago

#73

Originally posted by: Rehanism
Personally I don't believe that ends justify means. Means are as important as the ends, perhaps more. When you take the wrong means you end up corrupting the ends as well, even if you don't realize on the run. Its sort of a butterfly effect. Almost all of the most infamous tyrants on earth actually started out with greater good in mind, but they were so certain of the righteousness of their cause that they never took account of the means they were adopting. I think same is the case with Mahabharat as well. It ended up with complete annihilation of all sides, including the Yadavas who mostly stayed away from the conflict. The purported Dharmayuga never materialized.

but what defines means are evil here or good there?
Purely as an example, the early congress and later gandhi had a noble mean of deputation, meeting, civil disobedience and whatever to drive away british. Did the colonial rulers get up and take notice? No, ionly when the killing, bombing, started did they take up notice. India's independance is a very complicated chapter and there are many roots and causes for why is why, almost another MB, but roughly, was it not the case?
and yes you can say we did pay a steep price by division, long riots, destruction of property lives of innocent men, women children. but it is difficult to say which is right and which means are right and which are wrong in a big picture. Everything is grey. Something , sometimes, done with a good intention, honest way, can end up having disastrous result. The impulsive but honest pledge of Bhisma,done with good intention, in a good way, ended up being one of the biggest catalyst for all the events. if he wasn't so finicky about the whiteness of his mean, and added clause like if the sons of mother satyavati die childless, I will break by vow, maybe MB would have had a diff course.

Also as long as Yudisthir stuck to pristine white mean , he did not achiecve significant success in the final war. Bhisma, Drona, both their death happened after yudi turned slightly grey on advice of Krishna.
tHE dharmayuga did happen. Yudi ruled for 36 yrs and pulled the country back from an abyss. by the time he retired, HP ahd unified a large portion of India and was quite prosperous

In the end I think Yudhishtir, and not Krishna, is the only character who actually had greater good in his heart. Krishna never really wanted peace. He deliberately hurt Duryodhan's ego in Hastinapur by turning down his hospitality and then berated him publicly, ensuring that he would never agree to even the proposal of 5 villages. But Yudhishtir was always the man who understood the futility of the war, both before as well as after its culmination.

But Yudishtir never did anything wihout consulting with krishna

krishna did not do anything that crossed yudisthir's command.

Yes you may say he wanted war, to wipe of all the greedy, power hungry people.

but he did try his best to avert it.

I don't think turning down DSuri's hospitability was hurting his ego . it was more of making a political statement and defining his position. That he would not be intimidated, or cajoled, or coaxed into changing his stance or support.

Don't angry ministers or envoys on a mission to sort out problem, choose to stay with neutral 3rd party or their own Embassy? Think of it like that.

as for public beration, did Dhrit not request of it from krishna? saying he does not listen to me anymore?

and do messengers envoys not give public speeches enumerating the wrongs that has been done by the opponent side? Its plain political manouver. Everyone will do it.

Duri created a public spectacle of harassing, humiliating his cousins and their wife, in front of revered members of public and invited guests and other notable members of HP rajsabha.

Was it not done as an exhibit of power too?

yes yudishtir did understand the futility of war, so did Krishna.

Edited by LeadNitrate - 11 years ago