Crime is crime, either done on a basis of righteousness or for the sake of killing, doesn't change output, and as you also stated that Pandavas did pay a hefty price as well.
Crime is crime, either done on a basis of righteousness or for the sake of killing, doesn't change output, and as you also stated that Pandavas did pay a hefty price as well.
Originally posted by: peridot.
check the bold. From what I read Draupadi never had a childhood and was "directly an adult".The MB is full of instances of supernatural births and other events which puts it more in line with a mythology. The birth of Shishupala, Jarasandha, Kauravas, Krishna, Vyasa were all abnormal or extraordinary.A few random thoughts--If Pandavas were not biological children of Pandu whereas the Kauravas were biological sons of Dhritirashtra there was bound to be a dispute for the claim to HP throne.Vyasa was Satyawati's son out of wedlock just as Karna was Kunti's . However Rishi Vyasa was a revered rishi whereas Karna's birth was supposed to be socially unacceptable.Rishi Parashuram was Vishnu's avatar yet Karna was cursed by him when it was "discovered " that he was a kshatriya and not a brahmin. How could someone "fool" an avatar of Vishnu? On the otherhand if Parashuram had been aware that Karna had been lying why did he teach him in the first place?Was asking for the thumb of Eklavya as gurudakshina a part of dharma or adharma?More later--
Eklavya
This is a complicated incident. Like many events in
Mahabharata, I don't think it can be truly classified as adharma or dharma.
In the small scheme of things, it reeks of adharma. Drona
unfairly took advantage of Eklavya's devotion. He was prejudiced towards Arjuna
and denied Eklavya his glory.
However, would Eklavya have been as well known if he had not
sacrificed his thumb? As a lowly tribal boy, he would never have had the
opportunity to go to war or compete in tournaments like the nobles did. He may
have never got the opportunities. He may have been a character lost in the
pages of history. That one sacrifice, that one expensive gurudakshina made
Eklavya renown for being a prized student and great warrior. Maybe Drona gave
him the only shot at glory that was due to him.
In the grand scheme of things Drona's demand of an unfair
gurudakshina sets the stage for many things. Would Arjuna have ever grown to be
the warrior he was if he didn't believe he had Drona's undivided attention?
Would Arjuna have agreed to pay Drona his heavy gurudakshina of raising arms
against him and fighting unto death. Seeing Eklavya's sacrifice made Arjuna
keen on impressing Drona further. And without Arjuna promising battle as
gurudakshina the outcome of Kurukshetra would be different.
Also we need to remember Drona was not renown for his dharma. As a Brahmin who lived a kshatriya lifestyle he was already frowned upon. He made many questionable decisions during war as well. In fact people were convinced Drona abandoned ethics of warfare when he was commander in chief. Drona was a revered good guy, but he had immensely dark shades to his character.
Genie - Eklavya becomes a close aide of Jarsandha after the gurudakshina incident. He is killed in the war between Krishna and Jarsandha over Rukmini. Not sure if he is personally killed by Krishna.
I thought he interlocked the arrows around the dogs mouth to keep it shut without harming him. That was the skill that awed everyone. Otherwise I think anyone could fill a dogs mouth with arrows. If he harmed the dog, then the question of dharma arises. Even then, there is selfishness where he placed himself above the dogs comfort. What about the dog eating, drinking etc. later.
Crime is crime, either done on a basis of righteousness or for the sake of killing, doesn't change output, and as you also stated that Pandavas did pay a hefty price as well.
Originally posted by: return_to_hades
Genie - Eklavya becomes a close aide of Jarsandha after the gurudakshina incident.
No clue tbh, but from what I have read his tribe was always in opposition to Yadav and kuru clan . So he was a natural enemy , true he picked his association with Jarasandha later. I am not sure how connected Krishna was with Hastinapur during the gurudakshina incident. Need to check the timeline. Though his tribe "nishada" was known to indulge in anti-social activities against Kuru , Drona refused him as a student on the principle that he cannot teach a student who might go against his employers.
He is killed in the war between Krishna and Jarsandha over Rukmini. Not sure if he is personally killed by Krishna.
Well there is this whole thing about him stopping the rath that krishna was driving and was killed after a hurled stone hit him. His whole time with Jarashandha was shady.
I thought he interlocked the arrows around the dogs mouth to keep it shut without harming him. That was the skill that awed everyone.
Shutting a dog's voice even if it might not cause physical harm - would it not come under harm, still? Barking is a natural instinct for a Dog, afterall. He might have the skills and competence perhaps he lacked the character to be an archer.
Otherwise I think anyone could fill a dogs mouth with arrows. If he harmed the dog, then the question of dharma arises.
Even then, there is selfishness where he placed himself above the dogs comfort. Exactly , Dog's discomfort above himself when he could have avoided such situation.
What about the dog eating, drinking etc. later.
Not sure by this, but considering he was a pet , i hope he got some aid.
comment:
p_commentcount