Mahabharat Retelecast Discussion Thread 4 - Page 86

Created

Last reply

Replies

1.2k

Views

37.1k

Users

20

Likes

1.2k

Frequent Posters

Armu4eva thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar


Krishna ordered because Yudhishtira refused to tell a lie.


Like Krishna later says, it's not enough to know the truth, it's important to differentiate between truth and lie.


Yudhishtira had no clue about greater truth. He was too consumed by his grandiose notions about himself to sacrifice himself to save his kingdom. Yes, sacrifice sometimes involved sacrifice of honor and self esteem, not just life and limb. Yudhishtira was too egotistical to do it. Hence Krishna's suggestion.

True that but yet there is no logical explanation why such a man was allowed to sit on the throne by Krishna/Vyas?

AninditaB thumbnail
6th Anniversary Thumbnail Visit Streak 180 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: Armu4eva

True that but yet there is no logical explanation why such a man was allowed to sit on the throne by Krishna/Vyas?

Because he had all the 6 qualities a King needs. Shaurya, Dharm, Karm, Dhairya, Kshama, Dand.


Arjun can't be a king because he had no patience or he was haste in taking decision. Remember the vow taken for killing Jaydrath, if there hadn't been eclipse or like we Shri Krishna hiding the sun, he couldn't have killed Jaydrath. Moreover, he was some how weakened on killing his own kith and kin. Shri Krishna has to deliver Shri Mad Bhagwat Geeta to motivate him. Still he wasn't sure to kill Bheeshm, Angraj Karn.



Bheem's anger was the reason for not being qualified for becoming a king. And he could be manipulated easily.


So, Yudhisthir has to become a king. Well IMO, he was really a very good king.

FlauntPessimism thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: Andy3456

Because he had all the 6 qualities a King needs. Shaurya, Dharm, Karm, Dhairya, Kshama, Dand.


Arjun can't be a king because he had no patience or he was haste in taking decision. Remember the vow taken for killing Jaydrath, if there hadn't been eclipse or like we Shri Krishna hiding the sun, he couldn't have killed Jaydrath. Moreover, he was some how weakened on killing his own kith and kin. Shri Krishna has to deliver Shri Mad Bhagwat Geeta to motivate him. Still he wasn't sure to kill Bheeshm, Angraj Karn.



Bheem's anger was the reason for not being qualified for becoming a king. And he could be manipulated easily.


So, Yudhisthir has to become a king. Well IMO, he was really a very good king.

The person who could stake his state for a game could be anything but a good king.

He was not willing to go for a war to save his image, what Dand are you talking about

He might have been a warrior and Dharmik (I never consider him so) but definitely didn't have the other qualities


The examples you gave are just a eyewash to somehow justify his stake as a king. He was made the king just because he was the eldest

1123225 thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: Andy3456

Because he had all the 6 qualities a King needs. Shaurya, Dharm, Karm, Dhairya, Kshama, Dand.


Arjun can't be a king because he had no patience or he was haste in taking decision. Remember the vow taken for killing Jaydrath, if there hadn't been eclipse or like we Shri Krishna hiding the sun, he couldn't have killed Jaydrath. Moreover, he was some how weakened on killing his own kith and kin. Shri Krishna has to deliver Shri Mad Bhagwat Geeta to motivate him. Still he wasn't sure to kill Bheeshm, Angraj Karn.



Bheem's anger was the reason for not being qualified for becoming a king. And he could be manipulated easily.


So, Yudhisthir has to become a king. Well IMO, he was really a very good king.


Yudhishtira had no shaurya and blamed destiny for everything that happened. He refused ro mete out dand. He time and and again threatened to quit his karm - even soft-spoken Arjuna once told Yudhishtira go wear saffron if he weren't prepared to carry out his duties. Panchali, Kunti, Bheema, Krishna, and Vyasa kept asking him to stand up and do the duties of a king. Yudhishtira had to be shamed into it. Panchali finally lost it after war and called him a lunatic who should be locked in an asylum.


Krishna told Yudhishtira it is not enough to understand the truth. That people who don't understand the difference between dharm and adharm are actually fools.


Yudhishtira's utter lack of dhairya was evident in his conversation with Krishna before Jarasandha, in his own words during the argument with Panchali in Vana parva, when he asked Panchali to go and submit to Keechaka so he wouldn't get caught, during the fight with Arjuna in the middle of the war.


What's left... kshama? Yup, we saw that when he justified Bheema stomping on Suyodhana's head, and even Krishna lost his patience with the Pandavas. Kshama shown toward a superior enemy is just fear as he did with Keechaka and Jayadratha (because Kauravas would attack). In any case, he was forgiving a crime done to Panchali😆, not to himself. Fine kshama that.


------


A king who lost the lives, livelihoods, and safety of every man, woman, and child in the kingdom to an evil quartet was not a good king.


A king who told his wife to come to court clad in one cloth with her navel exposed, a king who described her body in disgusting terms to a room full of men, a king who told his wife to submit to another man... that is not a good king.


As far as he knew, the enemy would do the exact same thing to every woman in his kingdom. He simply didn't care. The only thing he cared about was his delusional idea he was honorable. Notice that his honor didn't involve any danger to himself. Only to the people around him.


------


Kingdom was run well. Panchali handled finance and was citizen liaison. Bheema handled defense. Arjuna handled foreign affairs and trade. Nakula handled animals and several other duties. Sahadeva handled administration. Kunti was the chatelaine of the palace.


Remind me again... what did Yudhishtira do? Oh, right. He respectfully greeted rishis.

Edited by HearMeRoar - 5 years ago
Armu4eva thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

Guys I understand all the counter views but the moot question still remains. Why Vyas/Krishna made Yudi king?

I mean even if I dislike Ram sending/letting Sita go to vanvas over a few whispers in the kingdom or stay quiet as another agni pariksha is asked of her, it was clear Valmiki wanted to teach us how to follow Rajdharm and duties of an ideal king. I cant fathom what Vyas wants to teach us by letting Yudi be king? It's kind of weird scholars have not discussed this aspect.

1123225 thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: Armu4eva

Guys I understand all the counter views but the moot question still remains. Why Vyas/Krishna made Yudi king?

I mean even if I dislike Ram sending/letting Sita go to vanvas over a few whispers in the kingdom or stay quiet as another agni pariksha is asked of her, it was clear Valmiki wanted to teach us how to follow Rajdharm and duties of an ideal king. I cant fathom what Vyas wants to teach us by letting Yudi be king? It's kind of weird scholars have not discussed this aspect.


Vyasa was the chronicler of history. He wasn't teaching; he was documenting. He was also quite blunt about what he saw. Books and TV shows misinterpret him to show Yudhishtira as the perfect king.


As to why they chose Yudhishtira... Kuru and Panchal were the bluest of blue bloods. They needed an alliance to bring down Jarasandha. Krishna desperately needed the alliance, too. There were only two options to form that alliance... Suyodhana and Yudhishtira. Out of the 2, Yudhishtira was the better bet and more likely to listen to Vyasa. Plus, Yudhishtira was related to Krishna.


Ie, Yudhishtira was chosen for practical purposes, not because either Krishna or Vyasa saw great qualities in him. Also, they probably didn't see his bad qualities at the time.

FlauntPessimism thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: Armu4eva

Guys I understand all the counter views but the moot question still remains. Why Vyas/Krishna made Yudi king?

I mean even if I dislike Ram sending/letting Sita go to vanvas over a few whispers in the kingdom or stay quiet as another agni pariksha is asked of her, it was clear Valmiki wanted to teach us how to follow Rajdharm and duties of an ideal king. I cant fathom what Vyas wants to teach us by letting Yudi be king? It's kind of weird scholars have not discussed this aspect.

Yudhishtir was the eldest brother. This somehow had always remained the basic argument of Pandavas that Yudhishtir being the eldest deserves the throne, now surpassing exactly this point could have not given them a good message.


Secondly I somehow feel that Vyas did want some say in the royal matter(Completely my perspective) Yudhishtir would have listened to him much more than others


About Krishna again the same reason, assuming that he wanted a Yadav dominated Aryavarta, Yudhishtir would be much easier to assimilate in favour than others, despite Arjun being his friend.

FlauntPessimism thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar


Vyasa was the chronicler of history. He wasn't teaching; he was documenting. He was also quite blunt about what he saw. Books and TV shows misinterpret him to show Yudhishtira as the perfect king.


As to why they chose Yudhishtira... Kuru and Panchal were the bluest of blue bloods. They needed an alliance to bring down Jarasandha. Krishna desperately needed the alliance, too. There were only two options to form that alliance... Suyodhana and Yudhishtira. Out of the 2, Yudhishtira was the better bet and more likely to listen to Vyasa. Plus, Yudhishtira was related to Krishna.


Ie, Yudhishtira was chosen for practical purposes, not because either Krishna or Vyasa saw great qualities in him. Also, they probably didn't see his bad qualities at the time.

I think she wants to understand why after the war, they didn't push for Bheem/Arjun/Sahdev etc. for the throne.

Why was it always Yudi vs Suyodhan

Mages thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Elite Thumbnail + 7
Posted: 5 years ago

https://twitter.com/snehu19020/status/1277664064504606720?s=20


lavanya with his daughter and shaheer commented❤

1123225 thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I think she wants to understand why after the war, they didn't push for Bheem/Arjun/Sahdev etc. for the throne.

Why was it always Yudi vs Suyodhan


Answer lies in Panchali's tirade. She called them mad for not tossing out Yudhishtira. The younger Pandavas were too indoctrinated by society and family not to follow older brother.

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".