Debate Mansion

   

Mythology and Scriptures Debate Thread (Page 10)

Post Reply New Post

Page 10 of 44

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 19998

Posted: 26 October 2009 at 10:08pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

You cannot debate mythos without bringing God into it, as God is the main character.LOL Remember, these mythos are also scriptures of a religion, so while debating the actions/ethics of characters will happen, debating it without bringing God into it is impossible and illogical.Wink That was another point of this thread: to discuss God here in order to stop bringing God into other debate threads which has been happening a lot lately. So if you want to debate something without God in it, then this is the wrong thread for you to be in.LOL


I think the problem most people have is not with bringing God into the discussion. It is the context that bothers most people. To the theist a scripture is about God. To an atheist its just a story. To an agnostic it could be either or. When you bring God in the context of a final unquestionable authority, you immediately have eliminated others who share a different perspective. Of course you believe in this unquestionable authority, but if you want to discuss the the morals, ethics and social values and contexts of a scripture you have to take a step backwards and present God in a context thats not so abrasive to others.

God in Hindu scripture appears in humanized aspects. They are not intended to be flawless and perfect. Instead of perfect world scenarios they are in real world scenarios in human situations and dilemmas.

Taking the situation of Krishna asking Bheema to hit Duryodhana in the thigh. Basically he asked Bheema to break the rules and cheat. Most people would say that outside the rules play like hitting below the belt in boxing is unfair and unsporting. So most people would ask 'Why would Krishna ask Bheema to cheat?'. Saying Krishna is God and he knows best does not answer the ethical concerns about cheating. Now when you put it in context and explain his moral rationale it becomes more understandable.

There is also the question of interpretation. Each person is going to interpret the same piece of text in a different way. For example, most people are taught "One must never lie" or "lying is wrong". Some people interpret it as a hard and fast rule. Some people say its a guideline, it depends how you apply. Some make differences between slightly wrong and very wrong, and think some levels of wrong are ok. Some people think not telling the truth or embellishing/exaggerating truth is lying - some people consider it free license.

So because the way our brains are wired two of the most devout believers can read the same scripture and take home a whole different meaning. The focus of a myth or scripture debate is not ultimately about the notion or authority of God, but how we grapple with the variety of meanings, inferences and interpretations and is a consensus or common agreement possible.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

..RamKiJanaki..

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Mythology and Scriptures Debate Thread (Page 10)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

Summer3

IF-Stunnerz

Summer3

Joined: 24 September 2007

Posts: 44122

Posted: 26 October 2009 at 10:25pm | IP Logged
Ah Krishna owned a time machine and he told Arjuna that all these people have already been killed my Me, you play your role and get the glory.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

..RamKiJanaki..

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 19998

Posted: 26 October 2009 at 10:26pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by DM01


The Pandavas and Draupadi were outright castiest.


I agree to a certain perspective. One thing that I found unpalatable while reading the Mahabharatha was the way the Pandavas treat Karna. Despite the fact that he is far greater in warrior skill than Arjuna and an equal to Yudhishter in integrity/nobility - they choose to overlook his qualities and degrade him for his caste. Draupadi too is very condescending to Karna.

However, upon introspecting further I came to a personal conclusion that their attitude is more of a result of misplaced fragile ego, rather than actual casteism. When it came to treating their subjects, the people they interacted with in their journeys - it was fair compassionate treatment.

Arjuna is extremely insecure and jealous as a warrior. He is constantly vying for his masters attentions. He is constantly trying to prove his prowess. He is so insecure that he cannot bear that Eklavya has become a greater archer without Drona's direct guidance. When he sees Karna, he completely senses that this warrior is a serious threat to him and he does not want to be shown down. Throughout it is more like an athlete trash talking his opponent hoping to get him down. And this misplaced ego and insecurity is pointed out to be one of Arjuna's greatest flaws.

Bheema does not need much instigation to get going and he goes with the flow. Yudhishter is too soft and compliant at times towards the flaws of his own. So the Pandavas all insult Karna.

Draupadi also had a similar ego. She considered her a special creation for Arjuna. She had mentally conjured up a status for herself as the great Arjuna's wife. She is afraid that she will have to settle for Karna and ruin her ego's fantasy - which is why she lashes out at Karna. The Mahabharata does point that vanity and possessive attachment to Arjuna was Draupadi's flaw.

Its actually similar to the mentality some racists here tend to have. They do not consider themselves a superior race. But when they lose their jobs to minorities or see the negative side of welfare they blame the minorities for everything. They use their hate as a means to escape from the real problems and frustrations.

In that sense I think a large amount of casteism and racism is not always out of superiority, but fragile egos and misplaced hate. It still does not make it right.

sonur15

IF-Rockerz

sonur15

Joined: 18 September 2007

Posts: 8647

Posted: 26 October 2009 at 10:40pm | IP Logged
Oh wowww debate on ramayan and Mahabharat ( my fav topics) . My fav is Mahabharat because its characters seems so real and it is a story of a beginning of Kalyug . What Draupadi rejected Karan during her swayamwar because Krishana wanted her to marry his cousin Arjun. After getting hint from him she called Karan a sootputra because there wasnt any other way to stop him.Asfar as right and wrong is concern Mahabharat story is based on so many wrongs. Shantanu wanted to marry Matsyagandha thats why he agreed to all the terms & conditions made by her father. Mahabharat is a story of Kalyug where Ramayan era is considered Satyug .

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 19998

Posted: 26 October 2009 at 10:43pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

However, I've never really blamed Kunti for some of the events, because I've always felt sorry for her character. She was another one of those women who did what she did because of the constraints on women in those times. Yes, it was because of her own carelessness that she got pregnant before marriage, but somehow, I can understand why she did what she did. It was all fear. Fear of society's criticism and abandonment were the leading factors for her actions, and though the life of one individual became hell for him due to her not speaking up, I still feel sorry for her.


Its not that I do not feel sorry for her. I actually understand her fears, her apprehensions and get why she acted that way. I mean many women even today have to face the brunt of minor indiscretions. A child out of wedlock is a terrifying ordeal.

However, there comes a time in life I feel when one should own up to their mistakes. She had married Pandu and had a fruitful married life. She had lived a good life in her favor. By not telling the truth she causes pain to a lot of people. Karna is deprived of his rights and spends a lifetime of inner turmoil wondering who he really is. Because of her telling the truth at the wrong time he has to face the choice between the friend who he had pledged his life to and his own brothers. Because of her not telling the truth the Pandavas had to bear the burden of not just killing their cousins but their own brother too, and the guilt of letting their misplaced pride causing so much agony to Karna.

Many times elders like Vidura try to convince her to tell the truth. She knew that he would speak on behalf of her with his wisdom. She knew that her son Yudhishther would act righteously and not  be swayed by emotion.

Had she spoken up the first time she saw Karna enter the field for the skill display contest - the Pandavas would not have insulted him, Duryodhana would have seen no common foe to become his friend. Duryodhana's entire desire for war was fueled by his confidence and faith in Karna - without Karna - he and Shakuni would have just resorted to petty mind games and conspiracies. Even if she had spoken later before issues reach boiling point - Yudhishter would have instantly relinquished his rights as king to Karna. Duryodhana would have had no qualms in sharing the Kingdom with his best friends.

Of course I understand these are still huge What ifs.

I think despite Kunti's sympathetic position - she still has to be accountable for her choices and their outcome.

In real world terms I think Kunti's choices show the challenges of children out of wedlock. Even if the child is adopted by a most loving family and the unwed mother goes ahead and lives a happily married life with husband and kids. The potential of children meeting someday and discovering the truth can lead to overwhelming emotional turmoil.

Also in todays age - if some child finds out that their mother could potentially have denied them higher status and rights to a conglomerate - would they be as forgiving as Karna?


Edited by return_to_hades - 26 October 2009 at 10:44pm

sonur15

IF-Rockerz

sonur15

Joined: 18 September 2007

Posts: 8647

Posted: 26 October 2009 at 11:07pm | IP Logged

@ RTH agree with u . Kunti was directly or indirectly responsible for Mahabharat Yudh. She had a son before marriage and then she convinced or forced  Draupadi to marry all her sons . It was pathetic. Some people feel because she herself lived such life  thats way it wasn't a big deal for Kunti if her all sons marry one woman.

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 19998

Posted: 26 October 2009 at 11:25pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by sonur15

@ RTH agree with u . Kunti was directly or indirectly responsible for Mahabharat Yudh. She had a son before marriage and then she convinced or forced  Draupadi to marry all her sons . It was pathetic. Some people feel because she herself lived such life  thats way it wasn't a big deal for Kunti if her all sons marry one woman.



Kunti never really forced her sons to marry her. It was a slip up. They referred to her as bhiksha and asked Kunti to come see what bhiksha they brought. Without seeing/thinking, she told them whatever it is split it equally between the five of you. She tried to backtrack what she said, but the Pandavas insisted that their mother's command ought to be obeyed.

I personally do not buy the whole concept. I have nothing against the five husbands. But I do not think it was all just 100% honor code and there was no humanistic desire involved.

I found an interesting article on Draupadi - http://www.dollsofindia.com/draupadi.htm

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

..RamKiJanaki..

chal_phek_mat

Senior Member

chal_phek_mat

Joined: 07 March 2008

Posts: 958

Posted: 27 October 2009 at 12:05am | IP Logged
Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

 
You cannot debate mythos without bringing God into it, as God is the main character.LOL Remember, these mythos are also scriptures of a religion, so while debating the actions/ethics of characters will happen, debating it without bringing God into it is impossible and illogical.Wink That was another point of this thread: to discuss God here in order to stop bringing God into other debate threads which has been happening a lot lately. So if you want to debate something without God in it, then this is the wrong thread for you to be in.LOL
 
So if you want to bring god into this cnversation, please be aware that the God wll be colaterally hit in this conversation and then you or anyon doest get to hde behindDead
Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

Just an offhand question: would you support people who rape or publicly disrobe racists (men or women), since the racists "deserve" it?
For me if one engages in derogatoy behaviour physically or emotionaly, they lose the right to complain about any derogatory behaviour towards them. If you are willing to dish it, better be willing to take it, dont hide behind something/someone when it comes for you to face the music. because the other person gets to decide how much pain they want to inflict for the suffering they faced.
 
 
 
Tommorow if Osama Bin Laden is caught, if he is flogged naked through the streets of NY by victims of 9/11. I wont have a problem with that.Wink
 
If familes of victims of 26/11 request that Kasab is hanged publically by Shivagiagar terminus in Mumbai. I dont think I will oppose thatWink
A set of offhand questions for youWink
 
If a person knowing full well that if eradication of a racist treatment of another human will potentially avoid loss of thousands of lives, stil continues to fuel& that treatment. Does that person deserve a GOD tagWink
 
For a moral person, for a path to a goal, if the means are immoral, but the end is moral. does he/she continue on that path?
 
For a moral person is it ok to elope when the parents disapprove?
 
For a moral person, is it ok to perpetuate a war where innocents are killed just because the innocents are led by someone whose POV's on issues dont match?


Edited by chal_phek_mat - 27 October 2009 at 12:09am

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
^DEBATE MANSION SLAM BOOK^

2 3 4 5 6

BilliCat. 46 6519 23 December 2011 at 7:23am
By .DontKnow.
The Spirit of Debate Mansion

2

return_to_hades 14 8675 01 January 2010 at 3:09pm
By Jess.
The place to debate?

2 3 4

-Sneha 28 1812 07 December 2009 at 6:44am
By -Sneha
internet debate tactics?

2 3 4

jettythegod 24 4054 27 September 2009 at 7:50pm
By return_to_hades
Anyone watched tonight's debate of Obama Perfangel5655 1 372 08 October 2008 at 10:46am
By raj5000

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.