Do you think Vidur was right to suggest Dhuryodhan be thrown out?

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

Mahadevan Venkitaraman

@maha2us

Voyager

Posted: 12 years ago

#21

Peridot, You ask about live-in relationship. Nothing becomes good or bad just because it is given a bad tag. It all depends on how something is utilized or executed.

Definitely we see a lot of live-in relationships probably because it is the way in the West and Indians have a tendency to copy many things which are done in the West. The question you ask is whether live-in relationship is acceptable? One question is why people want live-in relationship. Probably two persons enter into live-in relationship only if they see this relationship is mutually beneficial for each other. And one interesting point in live-in relationship is both of them need not commit as in the case of marriage. The relationship is such that anyone can walk away anyday. And mutual consent probably is not required. One person (it can be man or woman) walks away on a fine day when he/she feels the relationship is no more helping him/her when the other person still banks on this relationship for his/her day-to-day life. (What is needed for day-to-day life is not just money.) A partner can feel more secure if there is love and understanding from the other person and it he/she finds the other person is with him/her. present to him/her or available to him/her. How does it help if one partner leaves the other person pained by leaving? As an interesting point, whether this type of relationship is acceptable or not, if two mature individuals are together and want a committed relationship they will go for marriage and not live-in relationship. They know marriage involves being with the partner during thick and thin and growing together and developing the capabilities of being more caring, compassionate, gentle, tender, understanding and loving person. How all these capabilities show up during a crisis period is the test of relationship. What happens when one person gets into some crisis in a live-in relationship?

Quote

413226

Suspended

Posted: 12 years ago

#22

Originally posted by: maha2us
Peridot, You ask about live-in relationship. Nothing becomes good or bad just because it is given a bad tag. It all depends on how something is utilized or executed.

Definitely we see a lot of live-in relationships probably because it is the way in the West and Indians have a tendency to copy many things which are done in the West. The question you ask is whether live-in relationship is acceptable? One question is why people want live-in relationship. Probably two persons enter into live-in relationship only if they see this relationship is mutually beneficial for each other. And one interesting point in live-in relationship is both of them need not commit as in the case of marriage. The relationship is such that anyone can walk away anyday. And mutual consent probably is not required. One person (it can be man or woman) walks away on a fine day when he/she feels the relationship is no more helping him/her when the other person still banks on this relationship for his/her day-to-day life. (What is needed for day-to-day life is not just money.) A partner can feel more secure if there is love and understanding from the other person and it he/she finds the other person is with him/her. present to him/her or available to him/her. How does it help if one partner leaves the other person pained by leaving? As an interesting point, whether this type of relationship is acceptable or not, if two mature individuals are together and want a committed relationship they will go for marriage and not live-in relationship. They know marriage involves being with the partner during thick and thin and growing together and developing the capabilities of being more caring, compassionate, gentle, tender, understanding and loving person. How all these capabilities show up during a crisis period is the test of relationship. What happens when one person gets into some crisis in a live-in relationship?

I think it is all about commitment between two people. A ritual does not necessarily make people loving, understanding, gentle, tender or compassionate as is seen in many cases today. Marriage is no guarantee for either love, compassion understanding or security. Legal bindings can force people to stay together but cannot force them to have feelings or loyalty for each other. To get through a crisis what is required is love and commitment which cannot be forced by mere rituals or a legal document.

Quote

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

S.n.e.h

@S.n.e.h

Voyager

Posted: 12 years ago

#23

Originally posted by: bhas1066
actually in the original he orders the son to be killed! this view was supported by bhishma and kripa also. no matter how advanced, people were highly superstitious those times.
It was foretold that this child will destroy the kuru race, hence the extreme decision.

it cant be called superstition...coz it turned true

Edited by snehalS - 12 years ago

Quote

S.n.e.h

@S.n.e.h

Voyager

Posted: 12 years ago

#24

very good question first of all...and a very good discussion around the thread..👍🏼

if Vidur did ask to kill the baby ...then he wasnt right at all...coz our dharma grants equal right of living to all those who are borne...i am sure Shashtra will never support it...if Duryodhan was foretold to bring destruction upon Kuru rashtra should have prepared themselves to fight it...or if possible prevent it...by monitoring Duri's upbringing etc...

if we compare Vidur and Vyas ...definitely Vyas was way better in knowing the future right..still he gave human form to Duryodhan...thats what dharma says...and he did...so vidur should not have suggested such drastic measures

if we consider Vidur correct in asking the baby to be killed...for the sake of saving kuru future...we indirectly are supporting what Kansa did to 6 Devaki kids..protecting his own future...

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 12 years ago

#25

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath
Did Vidur want the baby killed? I don't think so. 😕 As far as I remember reading, he wanted Dhritarastra to abandon the baby and give him up to another couple so that he is not brought up as a prince of Hastinapur. Vidur was a righteous man. I cannot see him ordering a baby to be killed before it has grown up and committed sins.

In my opinion, Dhritarastra should either have given up the baby since he had 99 more sons and 1 daughter, or taken a greater interest in Duryodhana's upbringing. But he did neither. He let his attachment for his child blind him to his faults, and he never once criticized Duryodhan for his selfish motives. He just left him to Shakuni's whims.

Looks like you're right

As soon as Duryodhana was born, he began to cry and bray like an ass. And hearing that sound, the asses, vultures, jackals and crows uttered their respective cries responsively. Violent winds began to blow, and there were fires in various directions. Then king Dhritarashtra in great fear, summoning Bhishma and Vidura and other well-wishers and all the Kurus, and numberless Brahmanas, addressed them and said, 'The oldest of those princes, Yudhishthira, is the perpetuator of our line. By virtue of his birth he hath acquired the kingdom. We have nothing to say to this. But shall this my son born after him become king? Tell me truly what is lawful and right under these circumstances.' As soon as these words were spoken, O Bharata, jackals and other carnivorous animals began to howl ominously And marking those frightful omens all around, the assembled Brahmanas and the wise Vidura replied, 'O king, O bull among men, when these frightful omens are noticeable at the birth of thy eldest son, it is evident that he shall be the exterminator of thy race. The prosperity of all dependeth on his abandonment. Calamity there must be in keeping him. O king, if thou abandonest him, there remain yet thy nine and ninety sons. If thou desirest the good of thy race, abandon him, O Bharata! O king, do good to the world and thy own race by casting off this one child of thine. It hath been said that an individual should be cast off for the sake of the family; that a family should be cast off for the sake of a village; that a village may be abandoned for the sake of the whole country; and that the earth itself may be abandoned for the sake of the soul.' When Vidura and those Brahmanas had stated so, king Dhritarashtra out of affection for his son had not the heart to follow that advice

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 12 years ago

#26

Originally posted by: peridot.
Durvasa was a renowned and respected sage. Couldnt Kunti have told the truth. Durvasa could have verified it if the need arose? Since Surya devta was someone above her status it should have been acceptable. I think the fear was only because of the importance given to the ritual of marriage in society.

Kunti would have been in bigger trouble had Durvasa been brought back into it. After all, her reason for doing whatever she did was that she doubted whether this boon was real. But she'd have been safe - depending on when she revealed it. Had she revealed it early enough, like @ the tournament, not just Yudhisthir, but all the Pandavas would have happily accepted Karna. However, doing it any time after Draupadi's humiliation would have left it less likely, at least from Bhima, Nakul & Sahadev.

Quote

visrom

@visrom

Stunner

+ 4

Posted: 12 years ago

#27

Originally posted by: Manojie
I think perhaps we should look at prophecies like Harry Potter 😆

Do Prophecies predict the future or do they encourage people to behave in a certain way fulfilling the prophecy?

So many prophecies were made about Dhuryodhan. I am by no means comparing Ved Vyas to Professor Trealawney, but could Dhuryodhan have been moulded into what people thought he would become? Yes Shakuni poisoned him, but Bheeshma knew what Shakuni was like. Why didn't he prevent Shakuni from spending time with him? Was it because he already knew the prophecy and inauspicious signs?

OMG, I was about to write this...😆

You spoke my mind..

Destiny cannot be changed, no matter what you do. If Dhritarastra had abandoned Duryodhan, even then Duryodhan would have gone somewhere else and become evil.

If they had killed the baby, then the prophecy would never have happened. Nature would never have given evil omens because that baby was never going to grow up and become evil.

There was no point abandoning Duryodhan. Vidur probably thought let Duryodhan go elsewhere and show his evil nature out of Hastinapur...hoping that maybe Duryodhan was destined to become evil elsewhere.

If Duryodhan was meant to cause destruction of Kuru dynasty, he would have come back to Hastinapur and fulfilled it. Didn't Kunti abandon Karna? What happened, he came back and grew up right under her nose.

Edited by visrom - 12 years ago

Quote

1 2 3

Do you think Vidur was right to suggest Dhuryodhan be thrown out? - Page 3

Related Topics

Explore Topics