Mahabharata Related Discussions - Page 9

Created

Last reply

Replies

141

Views

34524

Users

23

Likes

137

Frequent Posters

Vr15h thumbnail
Anniversary 15 Thumbnail Group Promotion 7 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 11 years ago
On Samba's role, I'm not getting how his abducting Lakshmanaa was helpful.  Only thing I can imagine was that it denied Duryodhan a potential ally from kingdoms that may have been on the fence, or neutral.  But the rules were different - had any kingdom given a princess in marriage to the Kauravas, they'd have been dutybound to support them, but had any kingdom received a Kaurava princess, such as Lakshmanaa, they wouldn't have.  So this part escapes me.

I do think that Krishna would have done better being militarily fully committed on the Pandava side, and the entire Yadava army fighting for them as well.  The armies would have been far better balanced.  Arjun & Bhima could still have kept their vows, while Krishna could have prevented Ashwatthama from doing excessive damage.  I mean, if Satyaki could have fought on the Pandava side and be the #2 warrior in the Pandava army - after Arjun, why not Krishna, Pradhyumna, Charudeshna, Bhanu, and so on?

And w/ warriors like Bheeshma, Drona, Kripa, Ashwatthama, Bhurishrava, Kritavarma, Bhagadatta and so on, the Yadavas too could have been wiped out in that war only.  Krishna, as a combatant, could have ensured that some survivors remained on the Pandava side - particularly younger princes, who could have gone on to succeed their fathers to the thrones of their various kingdoms.  Examples like Sveta, Satrajit/Vikra, Purujit, et al.  Both of Samba's 'tasks' could have been achieved.
ShivangBuch thumbnail
Anniversary 14 Thumbnail Group Promotion 3 Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

On Samba's role, I'm not getting how his abducting Lakshmanaa was helpful.  Only thing I can imagine was that it denied Duryodhan a potential ally from kingdoms that may have been on the fence, or neutral.  But the rules were different - had any kingdom given a princess in marriage to the Kauravas, they'd have been dutybound to support them, but had any kingdom received a Kaurava princess, such as Lakshmanaa, they wouldn't have.  So this part escapes me.

They didn't support them either. But they also didn't take part from Pandava side as warriors which otherwise they could have had Duryodhan not been their Samdhi. It's simple. Duryodhan wouldn't have gone to Krishna at first place to ask for any help had they not been the relatives and Krishna wouldn't have resolved not to lift the weapon.

I do think that Krishna would have done better being militarily fully committed on the Pandava side, and the entire Yadava army fighting for them as well.  The armies would have been far better balanced.  Arjun & Bhima could still have kept their vows, while Krishna could have prevented Ashwatthama from doing excessive damage.  I mean, if Satyaki could have fought on the Pandava side and be the #2 warrior in the Pandava army - after Arjun, why not Krishna, Pradhyumna, Charudeshna, Bhanu, and so on?
Had Krishna participated or just decided to participate as warrior then either the war would not have taken place at first or it would have been over in a few hours. He also was not required then to inspire Arjun by telling Geeta. If Arjun was not ready to fight and fulfill his vow, Krishna would have done that as he says in Geeta it is he only as Kaal who is doing or is destined to do it through Arjun or Bhim or others. If it was better for Krishna being militarily fully committed then he would have done that only.😉 


And w/ warriors like Bheeshma, Drona, Kripa, Ashwatthama, Bhurishrava, Kritavarma, Bhagadatta and so on, the Yadavas too could have been wiped out in that war only.  Krishna, as a combatant, could have ensured that some survivors remained on the Pandava side - particularly younger princes, who could have gone on to succeed their fathers to the thrones of their various kingdoms.  Examples like Sveta, Satrajit/Vikra, Purujit, et al.  Both of Samba's 'tasks' could have been achieved.
Well the subtle message of the story possibly is that he incarnated to re-establish dharma and to reduce the burden on earth but that also requires some sacrifices like Abhimanyu and Yadava sena and also here he was to show his style and personality as leader to the world rather than warrior and it was not he anyhow who was responsible as human for that bloodshed of innocent soldiers. And favouring Pandavas through strategies and still staying neutral by giving his army to Kauravas. Wonderful, smart and purposeful balancing act.

Vr15h thumbnail
Anniversary 15 Thumbnail Group Promotion 7 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 11 years ago
I think the war would have taken place even had Krishna joined the Pandavas as their senapati.  He did fight other wars before, so this one didn't have to be different.  He could have let Bhima kill Duryodhan & Dushashan, Arjun kill Karna (had he been fighting, Bheeshma may not have prevented Karna's participation) while keeping Ashwatthama - possessor of the Narayanastra & Brahmashira - @ bay.  The usual combats would have happened, but it would have been a lot more balanced.

The Gita lecture could have been delivered even had Krishna been another warrior, or the senapati of the army.  In fact, everybody in the Pandava side could have benefited from it.  Arjun fighting, Bhima fighting didn't preclude Krishna, Pradhyumna and others from fighting as well.  In fact, for the Yadavas, it could have been salutary in some respects, given their long standing enmity w/ some of the other kingdoms.

I agree somewhat w/ your last section, but think that there is a fine line b/w ridding the earth of its excessive burden, vs not having enough kings to rule what was left.  Had Krishna led the army, he could have ensured who survived and who didn't, and w/ the survivors, allowed dharma to be established once the war was over.  The number of survivors didn't have to be 10.
ShivangBuch thumbnail
Anniversary 14 Thumbnail Group Promotion 3 Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I think the war would have taken place even had Krishna joined the Pandavas as their senapati.  He did fight other wars before, so this one didn't have to be different.  He could have let Bhima kill Duryodhan & Dushashan, Arjun kill Karna (had he been fighting, Bheeshma may not have prevented Karna's participation) while keeping Ashwatthama - possessor of the Narayanastra & Brahmashira - @ bay.  The usual combats would have happened, but it would have been a lot more balanced.

Certainly not. Dhritarashtra and Shakuni would never have allowed the war to happen. This was simply Duryodhan. Not Banasur & co. It wouldn't have been balanced. It would have been finished in favour of Pandavas in no time if Krishna wished. Of course if Krishna wished, even Jarasandh & co couldn't stand in front of him more than a few minutes that's different issues but Krishna always managed the ways of defeating people, breaking their ego first and then killing them only when utmost necessity rather than for personal enmity and also by honouring the divine powers and boons his enemies had. Here, Duryodhan didn't deserve even fighting with him. Killing is very far issue. He did enough to break his ego by showing his Vishwaroop but Duryodhan was just meant to keep it till his end.

The Gita lecture could have been delivered even had Krishna been another warrior, or the senapati of the army.  In fact, everybody in the Pandava side could have benefited from it.  Arjun fighting, Bhima fighting didn't preclude Krishna, Pradhyumna and others from fighting as well.  In fact, for the Yadavas, it could have been salutary in some respects, given their long standing enmity w/ some of the other kingdoms.
If Krishna himself lifted the weapon, then Geeta was not required at all. Yeah he might not have done the mass destruction with Sudarshan and would or could have handled different warriors each one by one like he did in case of Rukmi-Jarasandh-Shishupal etc earlier, but Arjun would not have been needed then to win the war.


I agree somewhat w/ your last section, but think that there is a fine line b/w ridding the earth of its excessive burden, vs not having enough kings to rule what was left.  Had Krishna led the army, he could have ensured who survived and who didn't, and w/ the survivors, allowed dharma to be established once the war was over.  The number of survivors didn't have to be 10.
Even ten survivors with refined system and dharmik values re-established proved sufficient to continue the species on the earth eventually which we are able to see today. Imagine what must be the population of India then if we google the exact meaning of Akshauhini. But anyway, here is the question of innocent killing so I am not totally against your views but just arguing for the sake of open view.

Edited by ShivangBuch - 11 years ago
Vr15h thumbnail
Anniversary 15 Thumbnail Group Promotion 7 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 11 years ago
I don't disagree w/ you, but some comments on it in blue

Certainly not. Dhritarashtra and Shakuni would never have allowed the war to happen. This was simply Duryodhan. Not Banasur & co. It wouldn't have been 

Well, Krishna need not have done everything the same as he did in the event he had agreed to lead the Pandava army.  He could have gone as an envoy, and told them that he'd lead them to war, and that if they wished to avoid it, they'd have to sacrifice Duryodhan, Dushashan, Karna & Shakuni for insulting Draupadi.  Had such a poison pill been thrown in, Dhritarashtra would have had no choice but to go to war, despite knowing that he'd lose, since he'd just not have accepted losing Duryodhan.

It's a bit like what ASR showed.  Every message that Rama sent to Ravana not only demanded that he restore Sita, but that he also demanded that Ravana take refuge in Rama.  That was a 'poison pill' which ensured that the demand would never be met.  In fact, in one of Ravana's dialogs, when Mandodari suggested that he return Sita, he reminded her of the adjoining condition that they had thrown in.

In terms of whether it was matched or not, putting aside Krishna, it would have been better matched - Krishna vs Ashwatthama (who had those 2 ultimate weapons), Pradhyumna vs Bheeshma, Arjun vs Drona, Satyaki vs Kripa, Nakul vs Kritavarma, Yudhisthir vs Shalya, Bhima vs the Kauravas, Drupad vs Duryodhan, Shikandhi vs Shakuni, Dhrishtadyumna vs Dushashan, Samba vs Bhurishrava, Bhanu vs Karna and so on.  It would have been matched.  And w/ a poison pill, it would not have been up to Shakuni to sabotage a war.

balanced. It would have been finished in favour of Pandavas in no time if Krishna wished. Of course if Krishna wished, even Jarasandh & co couldn't stand in front of him more than a few minutes that's different issues but Krishna always managed the ways of defeating people, breaking their ego first and then killing them only when utmost necessity rather than for personal enmity and also by honouring the divine powers and boons his enemies had. Here, Duryodhan didn't deserve even fighting with him. Killing is very far issue. He did enough to break his ego by showing his Vishwaroop but Duryodhan was just meant to keep it till his end.

That's the other thing.  If the Viraat roop (not the Vishwaroop - that was what he showed Arjun in the battlefield, and the images of the Viraat roop, for instance, included the Pandavas, which wasn't there in the Vishwaroop) couldn't convince Duryodhan, neither would Krishna's decision to fight have.  It didn't convince Dhritarashtra either, so neither would Krishna's decision to fight have altered that.  Just b'cos Krishna was fighting didn't mean that the Pandavas could all set up a collective hammock - they could still have had mono-a-mono combats like they did, and it would still have been a fair fight.

If Krishna himself lifted the weapon, then Geeta was not required at all. Yeah he might not have done the mass destruction with Sudarshan and would or could have handled different warriors each one by one like he did in case of Rukmi-Jarasandh-Shishupal etc earlier, but Arjun would not have been needed then to win the war.

Krishna could still have imparted the Gita the day b4 the war to not just Arjun, but everyone in the Pandava army.  And in the event that Arjun was demoralized, he could have reminded him there only - didn't need to be his charioteer for that.  One thing that strikes me - it must have taken him several hours of that first day to deliver the Gita, so it's a wonder that they had any time left to do any fighting @ all, let alone have Abhimanyu confront Bheeshma, and have Uttar & Sveta slain.

Even ten survivors with refined system and dharmik values re-established proved sufficient to continue the species on the earth eventually which we are able to see today. Imagine what must be the population of India then if we google the exact meaning of Akshauhini. But anyway, here is the question of innocent killing so I am not totally against your views but just arguing for the sake of open view.

The 10 survivors were the 5 Pandavas, Krishna, Satyaki, Kritavarma, Kripa & Ashwathama.  Ashwathama played no role in establishing any value system - in fact, he was one of the most vile characters to have survived.  Kripa didn't have a role in the Pandava government, although it's stated that when the Pandavas retired, they reinstated him as the guru (but it's not known whether he continued - there is no mention of his presence in either Parikshit's nor Janamejaya's yagnas, so I doubt that he really continued).  Kritavarma & Satyaki were part of Dwaraka as it devolved into a cultural mess that's decribed in Mausala Parva.  Krishna continued his role, but was playing it to see the Yadavas destroyed, which could have been achieved had they too participated in this war.  All the Pandavas were in Hastinapur, and retired together, so it's not like they started new dynasties.

No, I was thinking that each kingdom at least on the Pandava side should have had a survivor amongst its princes.  We know that Magadha had its ruler, and that there were rulers in Gandhara & Sindhu, but not elsewhere.  I was thinking that Sveta could have lived on to become the ruler of Matsya (he almost won the first day's battle, and it was his death that turned it around, and the Karuavas celebrated his death in the same way that they celebrated Abhimanyu's 🤢)  Similarly, princes from Panchala, Chedi, Kekaya, Kuntibhojland, and so on could have been saved to continue their lineages.  And a number of Yadavas were bound to have gotten killed b/w Bheeshma, Drona, Kripa, Ashwatthama, Karna, Bhurishrava, Bhagadatta, and so on.
ShivangBuch thumbnail
Anniversary 14 Thumbnail Group Promotion 3 Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Well, Krishna need not have done everything the same as he did in the event he had agreed to lead the Pandava army.  He could have gone as an envoy, and told them that he'd lead them to war, and that if they wished to avoid it, they'd have to sacrifice Duryodhan, Dushashan, Karna & Shakuni for insulting Draupadi.  Had such a poison pill been thrown in, Dhritarashtra would have had no choice but to go to war, despite knowing that he'd lose, since he'd just not have accepted losing Duryodhan.

It's a bit like what ASR showed.  Every message that Rama sent to Ravana not only demanded that he restore Sita, but that he also demanded that Ravana take refuge in Rama.  That was a 'poison pill' which ensured that the demand would never be met.  In fact, in one of Ravana's dialogs, when Mandodari suggested that he return Sita, he reminded her of the adjoining condition that they had thrown in.

In terms of whether it was matched or not, putting aside Krishna, it would have been better matched - Krishna vs Ashwatthama (who had those 2 ultimate weapons), Pradhyumna vs Bheeshma, Arjun vs Drona, Satyaki vs Kripa, Nakul vs Kritavarma, Yudhisthir vs Shalya, Bhima vs the Kauravas, Drupad vs Duryodhan, Shikandhi vs Shakuni, Dhrishtadyumna vs Dushashan, Samba vs Bhurishrava, Bhanu vs Karna and so on.  It would have been matched.  And w/ a poison pill, it would not have been up to Shakuni to sabotage a war.

It's a very nice point you have put forward Vrish but then that 'poison pill' could also have been given even with Krishna not going to lift the weapon. But they only demanded 5 villages (it's another thing that then the chance of submitting the culprits would have been negligible). Pandavas didn't formally show or stick to their intention of taking revenge of Draupadi and punishing the culprits through Krishna as their representative (their internal talks and implied by other party is different thing). That was just implicit in their past vows and Drupad family's determination. Krishna's peace visit didn't have explicit demand of such kind anyway and they showed willingness (at least Yudhishthir) to forget and forgive if Duryodhan was to give 5 villages. And that itself only proved to be sufficient 'Poison pill' you are talking about for Duryodhan (not for Shakuni or Dhritarashtra though).



That's the other thing.  If the Viraat roop (not the Vishwaroop - that was what he showed Arjun in the battlefield, and the images of the Viraat roop, for instance, included the Pandavas, which wasn't there in the Vishwaroop) couldn't convince Duryodhan, neither would Krishna's decision to fight have.  It didn't convince Dhritarashtra either, so neither would Krishna's decision to fight have altered that.  Just b'cos Krishna was fighting didn't mean that the Pandavas could all set up a collective hammock - they could still have had mono-a-mono combats like they did, and it would still have been a fair fight.

That convinced Dhritarashtra to entertain & give farewell to Krishna and stop Duryodhan from doing any further silly attempt. But he was knowing that Krishna is not going to fight and also had hope until Geeta probably that Pandavas and Arjun might not fight. And Viraat roop is very much similar to Vishwaroop except as you said Pandavas & Yadavas were specifically mentioned as visible along side Krishna on mission on their behalf. Otherwise, Brahma, Rudra, Yakshas, Gandharvas, Marut, Agni, Sun, Yam etc all are described even in Viraat roop just like Vishwaroop. And you are talking about fair fight but I would pity Kauravas in that case. Krishna and Balram single handed fought with entire Jarasandh alliance on numerous occasions & made their fun as if they were playing with toys. So Krishna was sufficient not just for Ashwatthama but for all the Kaurava warriors to defeat in no time even one after the other.

Krishna could still have imparted the Gita the day b4 the war to not just Arjun, but everyone in the Pandava army.  And in the event that Arjun was demoralized, he could have reminded him there only - didn't need to be his charioteer for that.  One thing that strikes me - it must have taken him several hours of that first day to deliver the Gita, so it's a wonder that they had any time left to do any fighting @ all, let alone have Abhimanyu confront Bheeshma, and have Uttar & Sveta slain.

But why would he remind Arjun anything if he himself can finish everything in no time? And if to everyone else he could deliver Geeta, then he could have done that as charioteer also. I think Geeta must have been delivered in the early morning when the two sides were arranging their armies in vyuhas and were making strategies for the first day. It is said by people that Geeta was told by Krishna to Arjun in 1 & half hours. It wouldn't be in Chhandas/meters but a normal fluent conversation and would also not be as slow & peaceful as Nitish Bhardwaj delivers (and hence specifically Anugeeta was told later during peaceful hours to Arjun).

The 10 survivors were the 5 Pandavas, Krishna, Satyaki, Kritavarma, Kripa & Ashwathama.  Ashwathama played no role in establishing any value system - in fact, he was one of the most vile characters to have survived.  Kripa didn't have a role in the Pandava government, although it's stated that when the Pandavas retired, they reinstated him as the guru (but it's not known whether he continued - there is no mention of his presence in either Parikshit's nor Janamejaya's yagnas, so I doubt that he really continued).  Kritavarma & Satyaki were part of Dwaraka as it devolved into a cultural mess that's decribed in Mausala Parva.  Krishna continued his role, but was playing it to see the Yadavas destroyed, which could have been achieved had they too participated in this war.  All the Pandavas were in Hastinapur, and retired together, so it's not like they started new dynasties.

No, I was thinking that each kingdom at least on the Pandava side should have had a survivor amongst its princes.  We know that Magadha had its ruler, and that there were rulers in Gandhara & Sindhu, but not elsewhere.  I was thinking that Sveta could have lived on to become the ruler of Matsya (he almost won the first day's battle, and it was his death that turned it around, and the Karuavas celebrated his death in the same way that they celebrated Abhimanyu's 🤢)  Similarly, princes from Panchala, Chedi, Kekaya, Kuntibhojland, and so on could have been saved to continue their lineages.  And a number of Yadavas were bound to have gotten killed b/w Bheeshma, Drona, Kripa, Ashwatthama, Karna, Bhurishrava, Bhagadatta, and so on.
I agree. That would have been better picture. But those were the side effects or sacrifices of the war which were destined to happen along with it. Had Krishna resolved to war to save those princes, then war itself wouldn't have happened at first place that's my basic & fundamental premise of the argument (and I am open for the opposite view of yours as well) here so this point of lifting weapon and participating in the war for the sake of protecting the future generation becomes irrelevant and secondary. We can simply see to this as Krishna & Yadavas didn't participate in the war from the Pandava side (to make the war as destructive as possible) having equal relation with both parties and since Yadavas didn't participate, few curses were generated & Mausal Parva became the course of future. 

Edited by ShivangBuch - 11 years ago
SahasranamaM thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago
Shivang,

Even I too feel that Kripa couldn't be the part of any official ceremonies by the Pandavas post Kurukeshtra. He was among those responsible for killing Upapandavas and others. It had nothing related to war/rules/dharma..anything. It was sheer hatred from Ashwathama and Kripa was a part of it. If Ashwathama was to be punished by Krishna, why not Kripa?
ShivangBuch thumbnail
Anniversary 14 Thumbnail Group Promotion 3 Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: SahasranamaM

Shivang,

Even I too feel that Kripa couldn't be the part of any official ceremonies by the Pandavas post Kurukeshtra. He was among those responsible for killing Upapandavas and others. It had nothing related to war/rules/dharma..anything. It was sheer hatred from Ashwathama and Kripa was a part of it. If Ashwathama was to be punished by Krishna, why not Kripa?


Actually I have no stance in this point. Kripacharya's point must have been written by Vrish in his own flow of elaboration somewhere rather than answering to me on that particular case. I would say that if Pandavas could make good with and accept Dhritarashtra and could serve him after or because of killing Kauravas brutally (or allegedly unfairly too), they could also give the honour of Guru back to Kripacharya after deceiving and killing Guru Drona by Dhrishtdhyumn on their side. After all, he was their honourable guru (and guru is guru in any case or circumstances) and known to be very impartial (it's another thing that I don't even consider Drona to be partial because what he was admiring was Arjun's qualities as student and there was no other reason for liking him more than other students). So he participating in Ashwatthama's attack during night after war (only attack and not killing of Uppandavas or Dhrishtdhyumn in sleeping state if at all it was in sleeping state as shown in BRC MB) could be taken as squared off to forget everything (own faults as well) by Pandavas considering him to be their Guru and what he did in the past was past. Status wins over action. 
SahasranamaM thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: ShivangBuch

Status wins over action. 


😕 True!!
NandiniRaizadaa thumbnail
Anniversary 13 Thumbnail Group Promotion 7 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 11 years ago
But wasnt Krip still their kulguru even after the war>?