Balaram on Dice Game - Page 8

Originally posted by: NoraSM

No argument there, They had to protect her but as I said Dhruti was blind in Dury's love and Pandavas were blind in Yudi's love.

They were more of slave than Draupadi, Draupadi had the claim of being free because Yudi lost himself before her, Pandavas didn't have this claim, they were disrobed too, they didn't have weapons as well

I don't get this Arjun not willing to fight because when I read the war chapters, every page contain words with him doing something heroic, he did not want to kill his guru, grandfather etc doesn't mean he wasn't fighting and only started fighting after Abhi died, he was as reluctant on killing of Drona after Abhi's death as he was before Abhi's death

Doesn’t change the fact that 4 Pandavas were victims of Dyut too, they had to live away from their family and sons for 13 years and lose them in the war

Agree. And the 5th brother suffered and lost only as much as them after being the main perpetrator of staking them & draupadi. And if you see Draupadi lost & suffered equally as much as yudishthir even after not being at any fault in the dice game. The children who died were her children too. Infact she suffered extra because she was the one who was stripped abused and insulted.

Originally posted by: naq5

Agree. And the 5th brother suffered and lost only as much as them after being the main perpetrator of staking them & draupadi. And if you see Draupadi lost & suffered equally as much as yudishthir even after not being at any fault in the dice game. The children who died were her children too. Infact she suffered extra because she was the one who was stripped abused and insulted.

In purely mathematical way, Draupadi lost 5 sons, Arjun lost three sons, Bheem two sons while Yudhishtir lost only one son.

Even among the Pandavas he suffered the least and reached heaven in earthly body

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Balaram was otherwise a great man, but he had a weakness for Duryodhan. That alone explains his bizarre statements about the latter in several places, not just this one

Balram was a drunk and a bully. Going by Harivamsa, he also assaulted Yamuna. He accused Krishna of thievery and murder with syamantaka. No surprise Balram fit in well with Duryodhana and gang.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

In purely mathematical way, Draupadi lost 5 sons, Arjun lost three sons, Bheem two sons while Yudhishtir lost only one son.

Even among the Pandavas he suffered the least and reached heaven in earthly body

yes

inspite of him on at par or with Dury karna dushasana shakuni with the crime he committed he got the least punishment and got glorified too.

Draupadi got the worst deal as she lost the most insipte of being innocent. It is difficult to gauge weather she actually got revenge and justice after loosing all her sons in the war or was it only more pain inflicted on her. Arjun was next who got such a raw deal inspite of being krishna's favourite.

Originally posted by: naq5

inspite of him on at par or with Dury karna dushasana shakuni with the crime he committed he got the least punishment and got glorified too.

Draupadi got the worst deal as she lost the most insipte of being innocent. It is difficult to gauge weather she actually got revenge and justice after loosing all her sons in the war or was it only more pain inflicted on her. Arjun was next who got such a raw deal inspite of being krishna's favourite.

As Panchali says a few times, justice was the duty of the kshatriyas. As rulers, they needed to do it. It wasn't simply personal justice.

She acknowledges the chances they could lose but says they need to do it anyway.

Under the circumstances, she was most likely (like 99.9999999%) aware any of her family members could die and wanted to do it anyway as it was the right thing to do.

The difference is the rest died in war while her sons and brothers were murdered.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

As Panchali says a few times, justice was the duty of the kshatriyas. As rulers, they needed to do it. It wasn't simply personal justice.

She acknowledges the chances they could lose but says they need to do it anyway.

Under the circumstances, she was most likely (like 99.9999999%) aware any of her family members could die and wanted to do it anyway as it was the right thing to do.

The difference is the rest died in war while her sons and brothers were murdered.

Justice for what?

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Justice for what?

I'll give you her words:

1. Dice hall: Dharma is subtle. It needs to be interpreted by people of understanding

2. There is a 6 or 7 page discourse between her and Yudhishtira which I won't quote. Essentially, the duty of the king is to make sure justice prevails in his kingdom. Forgiveness is good, but it not always the right answer, especially if there is a chance the criminal will repeat his crimes. Destiny is what you make of it - ie, God helps those who helps themselves. If you don't do the right thing, you will definitely fail, but if you do your duty and fail, at least you tried.

3. Virat: The duty of the king is to protect his citizens.

4. Krishna: It is duty to make sure crime committed is punished.

Writers and show-makers twist her words into some sort of revenge drama. But that wasn't what she said. In fact, Star Plus MBh turned it around and made Krishna lecture HER on kshatriya duty when in text, it was the other way around.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I'll give you her words:

1. Dice hall: Dharma is subtle. It needs to be interpreted by people of understanding

2. There is a 6 or 7 page discourse between her and Yudhishtira which I won't quote. Essentially, the duty of the king is to make sure justice prevails in his kingdom. Forgiveness is good, but it not always the right answer, especially if there is a chance the criminal will repeat his crimes. Destiny is what you make of it - ie, God helps those who helps themselves. If you don't do the right thing, you will definitely fail, but if you do your duty and fail, at least you tried.

3. Virat: The duty of the king is to protect his citizens.

4. Krishna: It is duty to make sure crime committed is punished.

Writers and show-makers twist her words into some sort of revenge drama. But that wasn't what she said. In fact, Star Plus MBh turned it around and made Krishna lecture HER on kshatriya duty when in text, it was the other way around.

@Bold - it is exactly what I am saying from the beginning.

Dice hall - Yudi lost everything, Draupadi and 4 Pandavas were humiliated, they got everything back in the end

What happened? The criminal didn't get punishment and committed the same crime again, Draupadi and 4 Pandavas got 13 years of Vanvas

Why forgive Yudi? Why let him go and commit the same crime again?

Not in the hall, I never said she should have spoken against him in the hall but he went for Dyut again, why not stop him then?

Did her lectures in Van stop him?

He sat there watching her being insulted then again in Virat, he asked her to put up with Keechak

The king did not protect his citizen, he is the one who treated his citizens like objects to be won and lost in a game of dice

The one who committed crime was rewarded with a Kingdom

That's every point of Draupadi

In a nutshell, there was no justice

Originally posted by: NoraSM

@Bold - it is exactly what I am saying from the beginning.

Dice hall - Yudi lost everything, Draupadi and 4 Pandavas were humiliated, they got everything back

What happened? The criminal didn't get punishment and committed the same crime again and got 13 years of Vanvas

Why forgive Yudi? Why let him go and commit the same crime again?

Did her lectures in Van stop him?

He sat there watching her being insulted then again in Virat, he asked her to put up with Keechak

The king did not protect his citizen, he is the one who treated his citizens like objects to be won and lost in a game of dice

The one who committed crime was rewarded with a Kingdom

That's every point of Draupadi

In a nutshell, there was no justice

The alternative was to let the Kaurava side go. She had no other way to do at least that except through Yudhishtira.

Also note: they probably ruled for 36 MONTHS after war, not years. After this, the empire was split into small pieces, thus making sure no one man could wreak havoc on the entire land.

So yeah... I'd say she achieved what she aimed for.

In her own words... if she did nothing, failure was certain. ie, Kauravas would remain in power, empire would remain intact, and Yudhishtira would still go unpunished.

The way it came about, she made sure of 2 out of 3.

I wouldn't diss a good outcome because it wasn't perfect.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

The alternative was to let the Kaurava side go. She had no other way to do at least that except through Yudhishtira.

Also note: they probably ruled for 36 MONTHS after war, not years. After this, the empire was split into small pieces, thus making sure no one man could wreak havoc on the entire land.

So yeah... I'd say she achieved what she aimed for.

In her own words... if she did nothing, failure was certain. ie, Kauravas would remain in power, empire would remain intact, and Yudhishtira would still go unpunished.

The way it came about, she made sure of 2 out of 3.

I wouldn't diss a good outcome because it wasn't perfect.

I am not saying that Draupadi could have done anything better, but from Karma view point too Yudhishtir went scott free. In fact he got the max

Someone who was the king of Indraprasth (Samrat having vassals across the country) became the direct king of both Indraprasth and Hastinapur (still the Samrat having vassal states across the country).

He was called the "Dharmaraj" and got mentioned so in history

He went to the Swarga with his earthly body something even the biggest saints could not attain (I really hope that point isn't true)

He lost one son in the war but that was all he lost from his direct familyline(I know that by the standards of those days the brothers family were considered as your own but still the deaths of other kids would affect their respective fathers more). His brothers remained intact.

Considering that there was the maximum level of divine intervention possible, he never got punished at all. Even the mute spectators of the Sabha like Bheeshm n Drona had to pay the price by their lives. Vikarna despite having been the supporter of truth saw the deaths of his 90+ brothers, nephews before dying a horrific death (we all know how brutal Bheem was)

Again saying that Draupadi couldn't have done anything better, but overall turn of events did result in punishment of everyone but him.

The ending was not a happy one for me