Swayamvar a woman's choice Ram - Page 7

@iDea-yeS-viruS,

Originally posted by: iDea-yeS-viruS

No.Duryodhana was permitted in Heaven not based on punya basis but based on His Kshatriya brave act.

Originally posted by: pasumarthisa

We should let draupadi be. There is another forum where the ghastly vastraharan can be discussed.

Janaki,

Very enlightening discussions but I agree with saathi, Mahabharata discussions can be taken to that forum, beyond a comparison with Ramayana.

I went back through the whole pages to read all the info .
Janki di , shruthi di and everyone thanku so much for the information
Amidst the questions of originality and perseption the whole thread exposed so many ideas .
Lovely to read
Thanks to everyone

I'm not a Buddhist. I think I'll never be.
My love on Ramayana may posed me as Buddhist.

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

@iDea-yeS-viruS,

Vastra haran was definitely a catalyst for everything else that happened in Mahabharat. How can one say it's totally disconnected from the war? Dhritarastra may have released the Pandavas from their slavery, but could he make Draupadi forget her humiliation? Could he make the Pandavas forget what happened to their wife? So what if Dhritarastra returned their kingdom to them? He could not return Draupadi's self-respect which had been destroyed at that point. Why should Draupadi and Bhima take back their vows just because Dhristarastra returned their kingdom to them? Their vows were in regards to Draupadi's honor, not any kingdom or materialistic desire. After the vastra haran, the Pandavas had no true desire for their kingdom. Avenging Draupadi was foremost on everyone's mind.

it's true that Pandavas and Draupadi accepted Dhrithrastra offer.He offered all to move on. If they didn't want to move on, is it moral to accept that offer? No nah?

Vows made for Draupadi honor? Definitely not. Duryodhana or Karn didn't disrobe a woman whom they likes. Dice game meant to Make Pandavas as penny less. Here Yudhistir only put all ones life for his interest in dice game. At least , he could've make Duryodhana to play.4 brothers kept their mouth quiet when yudhistir put Draupadi as pawn. But suddenly, at Vastra Haran they started to take revenge vows forgot they're already slaves

The war was not fought just for the kingdom. It was fought to avenge a woman's honor. It was fought to kill the immoral kings of Aryavrat. Lord Krishna orchestrated the war to kill every unrighteous man on Earth, from both sides. Except for the Pandavas, no one survived the war. That's how much blood had been shed. So it was way beyond desire for the kingdom.

No. I won't accept that it happened for women honor. Yudhistir tried his best to avoid war. Sahadev and Draupadi only urged everyone to fight. How many proposals. First, Krishna went as messenger,Duryodhana refused. Great warrior Bhisma died, Duryodhana refused to accept proposal. Guru Drona died, Duryodhana refused. Even his right hand Karn died, Duryodhana refused. At last, Yudhistir offers that Duryodhana may pick any of the Pandava brothers to fight against one-to-one with a weapon of his choice, with the winner of the conflict the victor of the war.
Still he chosen Bheem. If all happened for woman dishonor, it makes no sense for Duryodhana stubborn

No one is painting Draupadi as a perfect woman, but she was undoubtedly a great woman, and for many people, she was no mere human. Many, like me, revere her as an incarnation of Goddess Durga. She and Lord Krishna together destroyed unrighteousness from the world.

as said before, I'm not Buddhist. SO incarnation doesn't matters to me. In fact, I trying my best to avoid to post Ram as Vishnu incarnation.because I feel something meant for reference, not for liberty

As for Duryodhan, no man who thinks it is acceptable to disrobe a woman in a public court can be called a righteous King.
I don't care how good he was to his people, he and Ravan are similar in that they believed women to be the weaker gender and performed atrocities on women either for revenge or to show their power and control, which is just plain wrong.

I completely disagree. Raavan was ruler of three worlds. Duryodhana mace skills are so high. So I can't accept them as bad guys throwing atrocities on women. In Raavan case, I agree he mistreated women. But will you point out any other woman except Draupadi mistreated by Duryodhana.

As for the Kauravas going to heaven, Yama Dharmaraja later told the Pandavas that when a human being has less sins and more virtue, they see hell first to get rid of their sins, so that they can attain heaven permanently, and when a human being attains more sins than virtue, they enjoy the fruits of their virtue first in heaven before going to hell. That's what happened with the Pandavas and Kauravas. The Pandavas, who had a few sins in their karma, suffered hell first before attaining Vishnu Lok permanently, and the Kauravas, who had few virtues and mostly sins, enjoyed heaven temporarily before they descended to hell.

In BG,Krishna told Arjun that one who had brave death in war permitted to stay in heaven. Thus,Duryodhana fair Kshatriya dharma helped him to attain svarga.we shouldn't literally take Yama dharma words. Because, Pandavas didn't die very next day of Duryodhana death. Duryodhana died long and long ago. so it means he was permanent in heaven

Our epics have proven time and time again that those who dishonor women are bound for destruction. Whether it be through Ravan abducting Sita, Duryodhan, Dushashan and Karna disrobing Draupadi, or even Mahishasura dishonoring women, they are bound to be destroyed in the end, along with their entire dynasty. Ravan was killed by Rama, the Kauravas and Karna were destroyed by Lord Krishna, for whom the Pandavas were simply a medium to acheive his purpose, and Mahishasura was destroyed by Goddess Durga herself.

It doesn't matter if the villains in our epics had good qualities. It doesn't erase their crimes, it doesn't make them any less sinful.

definitely, I won't accept this. We should give what they deserves. Their good qualities won't erase their crimes but we must not blind ourselves from truth

One more thing - God would never support the unrighteous side, so his support of Draupadi and the Pandavas is more than enough for us to understand the epic.

what I learned from Ramayana is God acts shouldn't be justified under Righteousness. But one who follows their duties righteously must be worshipped as God.That's a concept made my heart submitted Sita Rama.one can't seperate them from me.

Lord Brahma also God. In fact , he is one of the Trinity. But his lie for who caused huge dishonor.even in MB, when Duryodhana listed out pandavas and Krishna acts, Devas throw flowers on him to support merits in his words. While Krishna and pandavas became ashamed. It's clearly mentioned Vyasa Bharatha. So being righteous is more important than worshipping god.

That's what Ram character stands alone. He didn't show any aattitude as I'm God, what I'm doing is right. He respected everyone opinion but finally took his decision based at what he felt morally right.one must follow before preach.

Also, to say God is partial is laugh worthy. God is never partial. We all are his children, but if a portion of his children becomes unrighteous, he will punish them without any partiality. Krishna accepted Gandhari's curse NOT because he committed any mistakes, but because her curse was needed to remove the Yadavas from Earth. The Yadavas were so powerful that no one could defeat them, and Lord Krishna's incarnation was coming to an end. He needed a way for his clan to leave the Earth before him, so Gandhari's curse was quite useful. That is the only reason the Lord accepted the curse.

Krishna born as human. But, he used his divinity against human rules. That's what he cursed for. Coming to Yadhavas case, Why should Krishna accept the curse.
Isn't it immoral to kill people just because they couldn't be defeated. I do agree, those had deep links. But openly, it's a kind of unfair

Personally I don't like Duryodhana. But I shouldn't make judgment based who I'm liking. Duryodhana was wrong at so many places. He was arrogant, He tried to kill Pandavas, He made fake friendship with Karn(their friendship became true. That's different), He disobeyed elders.

At same time, he must be respected for his stubborn in decisions, He dedication in practice, His commitment

...cont'd

At same time, he must be respected for his stubborn in decisions, He dedication in practice, His commitment in following rules.


Before Vastra Haran, I must say about yudhistir.He took a vow that he would respect everyone words. so his decided to play dice game. When he keeps losing, Vishur wanted to stop that game. Dhrithrastra refused Yudhistir only had right to stop. He lost his kingdom. What was the necessary to put everyone lives pawn.
Kauravas wouldn't expect this luck.
About Vastra Haran, Their act was immoral. But what I'm hating is why people always projecting Duryodhana as disrobing Draupadi wantedly.
In this case, Yudhistir was more wrong than Duryodhana did.

There are some places Yudhistir did mistakes. But I lliked him at one place, when everyone (4 bros and Draupadi) forced him break exile, He refused. bheem explained him thatgiving grass to hungry cow will clear our sins as per shastras, so they can quit their exile. But he refused and wanted to uphold his promise.

There are always good and bad. we must judge based on bboth, not on which we pick.

Originally posted by: iDea-yeS-viruS

No.Duryodhana was permitted in Heaven not based on punya basis but based on His Kshatriya brave act.

Gosh.its the same thing.its a broad term.

mahabharata is too complex to write random thoughts like this.