Horrible Childhood - Page 3

Originally posted by: NoraSM

So, Karna was son of Charioteer so he was always around Duryodhan

Exaggeration is there, I don't believe a child can sketch out plan of poisoning with picnic throwing Bheema down the river, I mean its a little difficult to digest a child can do something like this before he started getting education, he wasn't old enough to start studying, with mentions of snakes, isn't it possible a snake bit Bheema? Do they mention this incident later in any part of Mahabharata? I mean a child thinking that Bheema will be a problem between him and throne, why not kill Yudishtir? 

Shakuni being there is the only thing which confirms this poisoning incident, that dude was messed up

Bhima was targeted, poisoned and drowned because he was the most powerful not for any throne. There was definite animosity between the cousins and I don't think it was about throne at all when they were children. It was just a case of us vs them. They were always in competition with each other. Bhima mostly succeeded which frustrated Duryadhana. The jealous bug and a slimy Mama makes a deadly combination 😆

Originally posted by: Persephone_Pri

Wasn't it Shakuni who planted the seed of hatred in his nephews head. Wasn't it Shakuni who planned the whole poisoning, so yes it was not all Duryodhana. And didn't Dhus helped his elder brother to drown Bhima in the water. Poisoning food was and still is so common. No child is born evil. Shakuni molded his nephews and helped him to achieve his own selfish ambitions. 

Shakuni harboured no selfish ambitions as portrayed by tv serials. He merely assisted Duryodhana in the latter's schemes.

Edited by Wistfulness - 3 years ago

@Persephone_ Pri

Fact remains Bheema started the violence. Fact remains none of the adults did anything about it. When children are expected to go and face violence of the kind described by VYASA, and adults refuse to intervene, yeah, that's punishment no matter how many people like to forget it. And yeah, it warps a child's mind.

This is not to say what Suyodhana did was excusable. Not at all!

But as Krishna said later on, it is not enough to understand truth. It is important to understand the difference between truth and a lie. It is not enough to see the dharma on the Pandava side. It is important to know the adharm they did, as well.

Shakuni didn't plan any of the RETALIATIONS. Suyodhana did. Shakuni actually tries to dissuade Suyodhana a couple of times.

Moreover, as a guest of Hastinapuri, it wasn't his responsibility to ensure cordiality between cousins. The authority belonged to Bheeshma, Vidura, and Dhritharashtra as well as Gandhari and Kunti. They failed miserably.

Edited by HearMeRoar - 3 years ago

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Shakuni harboured no selfish ambitions as portrayed by tv serials.

Really!!! 😆I thought he wanted vengeance for the gross injustice done to his sister and family. Mama's sole ambition was seeing his nephew as a King.

Originally posted by: Persephone_Pri

Really!!! 😆I thought he wanted vengeance for the gross injustice done to his sister and family. Mama's sole ambition was seeing his nephew as a King.

Nope. That's a folklore. 😆

Shakuni had zilch problems with his sister's wedding. In fact, he even advised Duryodhana to let go of his hatred against the Pandavas. 

He wasn't a saint but not the main conspirator as shown by TV serials.

Edited by Wistfulness - 3 years ago

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Nope. That's a folklore. 😆

Shakuni had zilch problems with his sister's wedding. In fact, he even advised Duryodhana to let go of his hatred against the Pandavas. 

He wasn't a saint but not the main conspirator as shown by TV serials.

Really 😲 Wow didn't know that. Poor Shakuni is always seen as the main villan. It's straight up character assassination. 😆

Thanks for enlightening me with new knowledge 😊

 

I was wondering if Karna remained with Duryodhan, Kunti must have recognized him, why didn't she try to mend relationship between her sons and him?

Originally posted by: Persephone_Pri

Really 😲 Wow didn't know that. Poor Shakuni is always seen as the main villan. It's straight up character assassination. 😆

Thanks for enlightening me with new knowledge 😊

 

He wasn't a saint though, he was an active part of all the conspiracies of Duryodhan. Yes he tried to reason with Duryodhan, but also did support him actively

So Shakuni didn't do anything then how can a child plan something like this?

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

@Persephone_ Pri

Fact remains Bheema started the violence. Fact remains none of the adults did anything about it. When children are expected to go and face violence of the kind described by VYASA, and adults refuse to intervene, yeah, that's punishment no matter how many people like to forget it. And yeah, it warps a child's mind.

I never said anything otherwise. In my previous posts, I haven't defended Bhima anywhere. I am just stating the OTTness of it all. The writer is certainly exaggerating. The magnitude of strength possessed by a kid Bhima is overestimated. And, I find it hard to believe how the overtly indulgent parents Dhritu-Gandhari, who would move the sun and moon for their kids, didn't do anything to stop the ordeal faced by their 100 sons. Here, the Pandavs who spent most of their lives in a forest with no allies in the kingdom, except for helpless Vidur and Bheesma who never went against the king; would run over the 100 Kauravs, who were the sons of the king and bully them. In fact, not 5 Pandavs but only one of them ill-treated the whole Ks clan and went scot-free with it. In my opinion, it was a bit of a stretch. There were obvious differences, powerplay, and competition but the way it's amplified seems a bit overdone to me. Moreover, the writer wrote it with a positive undertone, so it's possible the whole thing was exaggerated to showcase the strength of the Bhima.

In my previous post, I just questioned if certain things are seen as OTT and non-factual then why must this be taken at its face value. Especially, when it seems so far-fetched.

This is not to say what Suyodhana did was excusable. Not at all!

I simply wanted to know if he was ever held accountable for his murderous acts. Was he properly punished for the attempted murder, a heinous crime he committed at such a young age.

But as Krishna said later on, it is not enough to understand truth. It is important to understand the difference between truth and a lie. It is not enough to see the dharma on the Pandava side. It is important to know the adharm they did, as well.

I agree with this. I said a similar thing in my post. The beauty of Mahabharata lies in the way how it is interpreted by everybody differently. There are so many angles a sequence can be viewed.  And the best part of the epic is the way no character is flawless. There is no black and white in Mahabharat.  Everybody has flaws in the tale, some are bullies, some are sexiest, misogynist, some overly compliant and spineless and some criminally insane. And, at the same time, they have extremely positive characteristics too. Everyone has their own truth.

Shakuni didn't plan any of the RETALIATIONS. Suyodhana did. Shakuni actually tries to dissuade Suyodhana a couple of times.

I got to know this now. Thanks for providing me with the knowledge. People mostly view him as the evil genius, the master of all the schemes but yes, he shouldn't be held totally accountable for all the misfortunes of Kuru Vansh

Moreover, as a guest of Hastinapuri, it wasn't his responsibility to ensure cordiality between cousins. The authority belonged to Bheeshma, Vidura, and Dhritharashtra as well as Gandhari and Kunti. They failed miserably.

True, I feel they are the ones who were mostly responsible for the animosity. The Two Matriarch, the "good men" Bheesma, Vidur, Dhritu, and the greatest teacher Drona, all played a major part in shaping the mind of the Ks and Ps. In fact, rather than dissuading the hostility, they added more flame to the fire. It just reinforces how much good parenting and teachers affects one's mind.