Karma and in Bidaai:Mod's note PG5

I would rather not call "HIndu" a religion because it is way of life. HIndu Philosophy is based on Karma theory. Good Karma, Bad Karma. In layman's words, one's rewards in life or sufferings are equal proportions to one's own acts.

One determines their own destiny according to Hindu Philosophy.

Yudhishtir aka Dharma Raj the oldest of Pandavas who is an ICON for truth and dharma fell for the temptation and obsession of gambling and lost his riches, then his army, then his whole kingdom. But that did not even stop him from ending the gambling game until he gambled away his brothers one after the other and at last even Daupadi his crowned queen and wife.

Although Pandavas were chosen to be favorites of Lord Krishna, still were exiled for 13 years. Could Lord Krishna not averted their exile? He could, but would not as Dharam Raj did Sauda of his brother's and wife. Hence, must pay for his actions.

First, Sadhana in Bidaai also has to go into exile for her misjudgment and not testifying in favor of Ranvir because she could not lie. Dharam Raj also faced similar challenge during Kurukshetra war. Lord Krishna himself prompted Dharma Raj to shout a lie "Ashwadhama Athaha, Kunjaraha" the kunjaraha was rather in a low tone to establish dharma. May be not lying for a good cause or dharma is also not good?

Secondly, as Dharam Raj's actions of gambling away his brother's and wife are deemed fit, so is Sadhana's making sauda of marriage is also deemed fit. Hence the burning in fire?

It is only the epic Sita of Ramayan in the human form who remained unharmed by fire!

Thus justice of karma theory always prevails! These aspects of Mahabharat and Ramayan are depicted very well in Bidaai.

Also, beautifully established that a mother is mother. She can never do harm to her own children. Sometimes taking tough stand is a necessary evil as a mother's role.

Originally posted by: vishmewell

I would rather not call "HIndu" a religion because it is way of life. HIndu Philosophy is based on Karma theory. Good Karma, Bad Karma. In layman's words, one's rewards in life or sufferings are equal proportions to one's own acts.

One determines their own destiny according to Hindu Philosophy.

Yudhishtir aka Dharma Raj the oldest of Pandavas who is an ICON for truth and dharma fell for the temptation and obsession of gambling and lost his riches, then his army, then his whole kingdom. But that did not even stop him from ending the gambling game until he gambled away his brothers one after the other and at last even Daupadi his crowned queen and wife.

Although Pandavas were chosen to be favorites of Lord Krishna, still were exiled for 13 years. Could Lord Krishna not averted their exile? He could, but would not as Dharam Raj did Sauda of his brother's and wife. Hence, must pay for his actions.

First, Sadhana in Bidaai also has to go into exile for her misjudgment and not testifying in favor of Ranvir because she could not lie. Dharam Raj also faced similar challenge during Kurukshetra war. Lord Krishna himself prompted Dharma Raj to shout a lie "Ashwadhama Athaha, Kunjaraha" the kunjaraha was rather in a low tone to establish dharma. May be not lying for a good cause or dharma is also not good?

Secondly, as Dharam Raj's actions of gambling away his brother's and wife and deemed fit, so is Sadhana's making sauda of marriage is also deemed fit. Hence the burning in fire?

It is only the epic Sita of Ramayan in the human form who remained unharmed by fire!

Thus natural justice of karma theory always prevails! These aspects of Mahabharat and Ramayan are depicted very well in Bidaai.

i have limited knowledge on the Hindu religion thanks for that

Originally posted by: fanbidaai

i have limited knowledge on the Hindu religion thanks for that

It is very simple. Hinduism = Karma theory = what goes comes around (doesn't have to be in the same form) or You reap what you sow.

Good topic. Even I believe in Karma or deeds. More than religion, I believe in doing good deeds. Your post actually reminded me of one point from Mahabharatha. Infact I used to always question this to my mom, that Krishna himself says in Bhagavathgeetha that 'truth is the ultimate', so we should always stick to the truth.

Originally posted by: *dewdrop~pearl*

Good topic. Even I believe in Karma or deeds. More than religion, I believe in doing good deeds. Your post actually reminded me of one point from Mahabharatha. Infact I used to always question this to my mom, that Krishna himself says in Bhagavathgeetha that 'truth is the ultimate', so we should always stick to the truth.

But during the Mahabharatha war, I remember Krishna employing certain wrong means to make sure Pandavas won the war, like falsely creating a sunset feel so that Jayathridhen can be killed (as after sunset he cannot be killed due to some special vardaan his dad had given him). Then again, the way Karan & Dhuriyodhan was killed was also unfair. When Karan & Arjun were fighting with one another, some problem happens to Karan's rath and he falls off it. He then asks Arjun to wait, but Krishnan tells Arjun 'this is the right moment, Karan is helpless now, so KILL HIM'! Thats how Arjun kills Karan. Now was that fair on Karan? Would that be a fair end to the fight of Karan & Arjun? Can Arjun actually consider himself victorious as far as Karan is concerned? Similarly, there is a rule that the enemy shouldnt be attacked on thighs, but Dhuriyodhan was killed by attacking his thighs as every other part of his body was immortal. Is it right to kill someone by going against the rules of the war?

Actually the term 'everything is fair in war' came from Mahabharatha I guess.

So the justification for everthing mentioned above is, 'Sometimes if wrong means have to be employed for overall good to prevail, the means justifies the end''. So that means it is OK to lie or cheat for a good cause, or to destroy evil. Only when lies are directed towards personal benefit of wrong nature, or that which causes harm to an INNOCENT human being, A LIE IS BAD.

I like your post because you have legitimate doubts in your mind about the Mahabharata war.

The rules of any war are:

1. Only one person will be fought against another at a time
2. No person w/o weapon will be attacked.
3. No one to be attacked from behind because they can't see
4. No killings of the opponent camps after sunset when war officially ends for the day.
5. No women and children of the enemy camps will be harmed.

There are many more rules which we don't need to consider for this discussion.

When the war started, both Kauravas and Pandavas were involved in dharm yuddh which means by following all rules of the war. Pandavas lost innumeral soldiers and cpatains in war as on Kaurava side were Bheesma, Dronacharya, Kripacharya, Ashwadhama, Karan and Dhuryodhan himself were considered men with great valor. Dhuryodhan wasn't happy he was not able to kill any of the Pandava brothers which would kill the morale of the rest of the brothers and eventually lose the battle. So, out of frustration and ill intentions, he forced Dronacharya to create a maze called Padmavyuha to trap Abhimanyu who was killed innumerable forces of Kauravas, and once he was into the center of the maze, Arjun can bebrutally attacked and murdered by Dhuryodhan, Ashwadhama, Dronacharya, Kripacharya, Bheesmacharya, Jayadhrad, Karna, Sakuni, Dussasan and few others.
Jayadhrad's role in this plan was take arjun far away where he cannot return for the help of Abhimanyu because Arjun was the only one who can break the maze.

But unfortunately, Remaining 4 pandava brothers could not keep up with Abhimanyu while following him as kauravas used entire forces to stop the pandava brothers. Abhimanyu who knew how to get tinto the maze, did not know how to exit out of it. As planned, 8 of the above mentioned warriors, attacked Abhimanyu at a time and stabbed him innumerable times from behind and all directions at the same time and that too even when he was unarmed.

Kauras killed Abhimanyu brutally breaking all rules of the war thus opening the game of open war to Pandavas. Otherwise, Pandavas would never would have had victory as Bheeshma, Drona, Kripachary, and Ashwadhama were on Kaurava side. It is the Adharma has open doors to death and defeat.

Karna with all his virtues, killed Abhimanyu, with adharma, so was he killed the same way.
Jayadhrad has cooperated and was an accomplice of trechorous killing of Abhimanyu, so did he die at he same coin.
Dhuryodhan and Dussashan also brutally murdered Abhimanyu following no rules and ethics of war, so were paid by the same token.

Here also, we cannot forget the Karma theory. They reaped what they sowed.

Originally posted by: *dewdrop~pearl*

Good topic. Even I believe in Karma or deeds. More than religion, I believe in doing good deeds. Your post actually reminded me of one point from Mahabharatha. Infact I used to always question this to my mom, that Krishna himself says in Bhagavathgeetha that 'truth is the ultimate', so we should always stick to the truth.

But during the Mahabharatha war, I remember Krishna employing certain wrong means to make sure Pandavas won the war, like falsely creating a sunset feel so that Jayathridhen can be killed (as after sunset he cannot be killed due to some special vardaan his dad had given him). Then again, the way Karan & Dhuriyodhan were killed was also unfair. When Karan & Arjun were fighting with one another, some problem happens to Karan's rath and he falls off it. He then asks Arjun to wait, but Krishna tells Arjun 'this is the right moment, Karan is helpless now, so KILL HIM'! Thats how Arjun kills Karan. Now was that fair on Karan? Would that be a fair end to the fight of Karan & Arjun? Can Arjun actually consider himself victorious as far as Karan is concerned? Similarly, there is a rule that the enemy shouldnt be attacked on thighs, but Dhuriyodhan was killed by attacking his thighs as every other part of his body was immortal. Is it right to kill someone by going against the rules of the war?

Actually the term 'everything is fair in war' came from Mahabharatha I guess.

So the justification for everthing mentioned above is, 'Sometimes if wrong means have to be employed for overall good to prevail, the means justifies the end''. So that means it is OK to lie or cheat for a good cause, or to destroy evil. Only when lies are directed towards personal benefit of wrong nature, or that which causes harm to an INNOCENT human being, A LIE IS BAD.

Karan and Anrjun's war again has some previous "Karma" of Karan involved...Karan was cursed by Parashuman and another "Rishi" that first he will forget all the lessons that he learnt from his guru during the critical period of his life and then the rishi cursed that "earth will swallow" his chariot wheel. Krishna as LORD has to take care not only of Karan and Arjun, but also for the betterment of the society as well as his Bhakts. Karan was defeated before also by Arjun during Biraat war, and remember Biraat war was fought alone by Arjun as Brivanalla. so there is no doubt that Arjun did not have calibre to defeat Karna...

Originally posted by: vishmewell

I would rather not call "HIndu" a religion because it is way of life. HIndu Philosophy is based on Karma theory. Good Karma, Bad Karma. In layman's words, one's rewards in life or sufferings are equal proportions to one's own acts.

One determines their own destiny according to Hindu Philosophy.

Yudhishtir aka Dharma Raj the oldest of Pandavas who is an ICON for truth and dharma fell for the temptation and obsession of gambling and lost his riches, then his army, then his whole kingdom. But that did not even stop him from ending the gambling game until he gambled away his brothers one after the other and at last even Daupadi his crowned queen and wife.

According to me, it not a right comparison. Dharmaraj was tempted (you too agreed) and as he was obsessed with the game (like a typical gambler), continued playing the game until he lost every one including his wife (he himself kept them as bet). Where as Sadhna kept herself as a bet. Had Dharmaraj kept himself as a bet and lost and then suffered all alone, then this comparison would be meaningful.

Although Pandavas were chosen to be favorites of Lord Krishna, still were exiled for 13 years. Could Lord Krishna not averted their exile? He could, but would not as Dharam Raj did Sauda of his brother's and wife. Hence, must pay for his actions.

Not only in Mahabharath, in all epics and stories we see truthful people suffer. This doesnt mean that they have to give up what they believe in right? We have learnt that come whatever may dont give up the morals what u have learnt. So all the epics in the world show the same thing. Goodness always suffers till it fights and kills the evil. So does it mean that goodness is paying for his/her actions throughout? I dont think so.

First, Sadhana in Bidaai also has to go into exile for her misjudgment and not testifying in favor of Ranvir because she could not lie. Dharam Raj also faced similar challenge during Kurukshetra war. Lord Krishna himself prompted Dharma Raj to shout a lie "Ashwadhama Athaha, Kunjaraha" the kunjaraha was rather in a low tone to establish dharma. May be not lying for a good cause or dharma is also not good?

Again not a right comparison. Dharmaraja did not want to lie at the same time did not want to tell the truth also. So he said truth in such a way that no one can hear. And in post mahabharatha story, he was punished for this. So how is it comparable with Sadhna's truth in the court? Her truth was clearly heard by everyone. And there Dharmaraja was fighting a battle against evils (may not be directly Ashwathama, but kauravas). Here, Sadhna was not fighting against (?) the person (Ranvir) whom she said the truth. Even if we think that lying for a good cause is not bad, it is Sadhna who got Ranvir bail. And he came out of jail without any shy.

Secondly, as Dharam Raj's actions of gambling away his brother's and wife are deemed fit, so is Sadhana's making sauda of marriage is also deemed fit. Hence the burning in fire?

Better to agree to disagree. Because, what you think is sauda is not according to me and many others. And the comparison is not right (explained above) according to me.

It is only the epic Sita of Ramayan in the human form who remained unharmed by fire!

Sadhna got burns, but she fought and won against the bad with her love. Vish, everyone has different ways of fighting. Zansi's Laxmi Devi fought with sword, Badi-ma (of SGP) with her wisdom and Sadhna with her love. I dont see anything wrong in any of these.

Thus justice of karma theory always prevails! These aspects of Mahabharat and Ramayan are depicted very well in Bidaai.

Also, beautifully established that a mother is mother. She can never do harm to her own children. Sometimes taking tough stand is a necessary evil as a mother's role.

This is your fav topic. Yes, mother is a mother. No one has commented about Vasu's love towards her children. I was the worst critisizer of Vasu. Even then, I didnt comment. Even in that case, Ambika was also a good mother.

Taking a tough and a right stand is necessary for a mother . If Vasu also thought she had taken a tough and a right stand, then she wouldnt have climbed the hill bare foot. She knew she was wrong and hence cried badly.

Every character of Mahabharata can be discussed as a topic and story by itself. There is also a connection of why a character was killed by another...

@ Vishmewell & Omshanthi (wow both of ur names sound so good together 😆) : Well guys, I dint have any doubts here, was just clarifying a small aspect of 'when lies or cheating can be justified' through Mahabharata 😳.

[QUOTE=reguser