Dharamaraj Yudhistira? - Page 2

Originally posted by: Darklord_Rehan

That is the difference between the common interpretation of Dharma and the Absolute interpretation which Shri Krishna gave. What you are speaking about is Maryada, not Dharma. Dharma is one and same for all. Maryadas can be different according to status or relationship or society, but Dharma or Righteousness is impeccable.

For example a certain religion says that a rape can be only called rape if the victim can present 4 eye witnesses of the crime. If the victim fails to do so, she shall be shunned as a prostitute and lashed in public. Do you think Followers of such norms can be called Dharmic or righteous just because they obey the scriptures blindly?

These norms are present in every religion. Sita's banishment is an example. When a much married man spends time with another woman nobody raises an eyebrow, but when a woman is kidnapped by an evil Rakshasha she has to walk on the fire to prove her chastity. Is that Dharma?

Blindly following norms and customs can never be called Dharma, in my opinion. It doesn't matter whoever does so - be it Dharma Raj Yudhishtir or God Incarnate Shri Ram. Ram's Dharma as a king and as a leader should have been to defend Sita - not because she was his wife - because she was being served injustice. Instead of doing that, Ram only encouraged that injustice by banishing her. There was a recent post regarding who would be my ideal King. I deliberately did not vote him for this reason. A nation's true condition is known from the status of women in its society. A society where innocent women are banished and are ordered to walk on fire can never be an ideal society even if God is ruling it.

That is why I prefer Krishna as my guide. I know Ram and Krishna are one and same. But Krishna never cared about such outdated and irrelevant norms and traditions. His only concern was righteousness and to establish that he could have gone to any length.

Originally posted by: jaisiyaram

I have no doubt about choosing Krishna or Ram.. both have their own way and moreover both lead humanity to better life..

The definition of Dharma given by Krishna states that every category whether shatriya or brahimn have their own dharma.. dharmas are nothing but set of rules which are supposed to be followed by that specific category ... maryada are boundations.. but dharma is a guide.. 

Gita speaks about Dharma & Karma at the same time.. anyhow.. I feel we both have taken this topic to somewhere else.. as the main theme was about DharmaRaj Yudhisthar.. & I supported him as I feel he might have done wrong but that was his call as King .. (we both are on the different sides of dharma and Maryada.. that's it) .. 

I know this debate is going off track, but once again I would have to disagree on this. Dharma is NOT a set of rules. Dharma is Absolute and it is same for all. Vedas, Shrutis, Granths and Quran are rule books and they all preach different rules which are even contradictory to each other in many cases, because they were all written by men. But Bhagwad Gita is the word of God. Krisha never prescribed different laws for different sections - infact Krishna never even spoke of any worldly laws at all, except for the law of Karma which is above every law. Krishna said a simple thing - Follow your own conscience and let your own conscience be the ultimate judge of the course of your actions, and do not worry about consequences - leave that to me.

Krishna says that when a man imparts his knowledge to the uneducated, he's a Brahmin, when the same man wields weapons for the sake of society, he's a Kshatriya. When he works for the progress of the economic condition, he's a Vaishya and when he serves the needy he's a Shudra. Krishna himself has done all these things alone following the same Dharma. So how can he say that Dharma is different for different people?

Krishna himself has said that Yudhishtir deviated from the path of Dharma by wagering away his wife and brothers and that is why Krishna asked the Pandavas to accept the term of Banishment as that would be a redemption for him. When Krishna went for the peace mission to Hastinapur, he did not stay with Bhishma, Drona or Kripa. They too revered him and were his favourites, but still he preferred only Vidur's hospitality. Because all three of them were Adharmis and only Vidur had followed his Dharma all along. In the entire Hastinapur, only Vidur had never deviated from the path of righteousness and that's the only thing which pleases Krishna.

For me personally, Dharma means Righteousness and not Religion. Religion can be flawed and discriminatory but Righteousness is absolute and unchanging irrespective of caste, class, faith or gender.
Edited by Darklord_Rehan - 13 years ago

Originally posted by: Darklord_Rehan

I know this debate is going off track, but once again I would have to disagree on this. Dharma is NOT a set of rules. Dharma is Absolute and it is same for all. Vedas, Shrutis, Granths and Quran are rule books and they all preach different rules which are even contradictory to each other in many cases, because they were all written by men. But Bhagwad Gita is the word of God. Krisha never prescribed different laws for different sections - infact Krishna never even spoke of any worldly laws at all, except for the law of Karma which is above every law. Krishna said a simple thing - Follow your own conscience and let your own conscience be the ultimate judge of the course of your actions, and do not worry about consequences - leave that to me.

Krishna says that when a man imparts his knowledge to the uneducated, he's a Brahmin, when the same man wields weapons for the sake of society, he's a Kshatriya. When he works for the progress of the economic condition, he's a Vaishya and when he serves the needy he's a Shudra. Krishna himself has done all these things alone following the same Dharma. So how can he say that Dharma is different for different people?

Krishna himself has said that Yudhishtir deviated from the path of Dharma by wagering away his wife and brothers and that is why Krishna asked the Pandavas to accept the term of Banishment as that would be a redemption for him. When Krishna went for the peace mission to Hastinapur, he did not stay with Bhishma, Drona or Kripa. They too revered him and were his favourites, but still he preferred only Vidur's hospitality. Because all three of them were Adharmis and only Vidur had followed his Dharma all along. In the entire Hastinapur, only Vidur had never deviated from the path of righteousness and that's the only thing which pleases Krishna.

For me personally, Dharma means Righteousness and not Religion. Religion can be flawed and discriminatory but Righteousness is absolute and unchanging irrespective of caste, class, faith or gender.