Mythological Masti

Favorite Pandav from Mahabharat and why?? - Page 2

Poll

Who is your favorite Pandav from the Mahabharat??

Poll Choice
Login To Vote
pakhara thumbnail
Anniversary 13 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 13 years ago
I would say Arjun because he was closest to Krishna. And it was to him that Krishna revealed the Geeta.

Created

Last reply

Replies

35

Views

10557

Users

10

Likes

59

Frequent Posters

anku- thumbnail
Anniversary 16 Thumbnail Group Promotion 6 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 13 years ago
This content was originally posted by: ShivangBuch

Very very nice additions Vibhishan and Lola. I loved them to read. And like Lola said, it was tough to choose. It was tough choice between three of them but still had I not chosen Bheem, I would have chosen Yudhishthir because I am in complete agreement with Janaki in that. On Orkut, apart from writing essay on Vibhishan, I also had done the same for Yudhishthir trying to defend him for long throughout the thread. In case of Arjun, other than the point that he was most liked by Krishna, I had very limited number of direct reasons of getting attracted to him or liking him personally and while arguing in his favour in debate. He was MOHAK and handsome of course. He was known for excellence in archery and concentration. But the choice between Bheem and Yudhishthir was more tough for me than the choice between Bheem and Arjun.


@Anisha

You have nicely put forward the point of Geeta dear sister. And it is my great honour that you say that you would even feel to vote for Bheem after reading my previous post. Your insight is really very very nice. Arjun was a great instrument in gracing the confused souls with Geeta. He had the flair characteristics of Narayan in him being the incarnation of Nar. But he was favoured most by Narayan to fill in the lacking part. The intellect of Narayan. He needed the direction. He needed the discretion power to be used to decide when to choose Bheem's natural instinctive extreme ideology of instant justice and when to use the other extreme ideology of Yudhishthir of peace and patience using the intellect and shaastragyan at appropriate situations. His innocent questioning, curiosity and eagerness definitely gave the world the Geeta. He definitely surrendered to Krishna and lifted Gandiv. But what after that? Did Geeta have long lasting impact on him other than the fact that he just started the war? I agree that Bheem didn't have to fight against Bhishma or Dron but still if we think from the point of view of people participating in the war, wasn't the drama of 10 days which was going on between Grand sire and Grandson irritating? Neither Bhishma nor Arjun was going to kill the other one and poor all innocent foot soldiers!!!!!!! They were the victims of this waste of time family drama. What Krishna actually wanted him to do through Geetopadesh was done by him actually only after Abhimanyu's death in anger and revenge for the son. And the same thing Bheem was doing right from the beginning with clear mindset (Not advocating the revengeful nature here but the clarity of mind). Leave aside the revengeful Paanchaal family. Just put yourself in place of Saatyaki. Put yourself in place of Magadh king Sahdev. Put yourself in place of Viratnaresh. Put yourself in place of Chedi king Dhrishtketu. All the friends and well wishers of Pandavas had waged war against Duryodhan without much personal interest. They had already gambled their life in friendship. Now if you are at their place or at the place of those thousands of foot soldiers, whom would you prefer? Bheem or Arjun? Who was more RELIABLE? The one who was not required to be told Geeta at that point of time or the one who made Geetagyan available to the future generations?

Arjun-Karna remind me more of Vaali-Sugreev. Bheem was Pavanputra and the brother of Hanuman.

 
Hello!!! Firstly, how are you? Hope all is good with you 🤗
 
Okay. If you would allow me to, then I would like to put just a few points of mine in this process =)
 
When we have to look @ Mahabharat, I think we have to see the role appointed to all the characters by God himself. See, I would not say that Arjun started his actual deed only after his son was killed. I look it as the part from where his role was to start. 😊
It was not the drama b/w the family where innocents got killed. One of the reasons of  Mahabharat taking place was also because the load of evil was increasing on mother earth. And God comes to earth to decrease that. In such cases, when a war is fought, both evil and innocent get killed. So, in those 10 days, surely many evil souls would have gotten killed too. As they say, during Mahabharat, there was so much bloodshed, that even TODAY, the land of Kurukshetra, when you dig into it, you find the mud RED. There was so much of bloodshed. Everything happened in the course of time it had to, I believe.
 
As it said, every move, everything, every moment takes place by the will of God. And when that individual's time comes to bring the action into play, it is done. Hence, Arjun, just played his role as God would have decided for him at the time it was to be done. That is what I understand =)
 
Bheem on the other hand, killed more of the soldiers while Arjun was to do away with very important personalities. It required emotional support to because it was not just a mere family drama but to kill his OWN grandfather who was very dear to him. If he have to do it today to our own mother or father, tell me how much time would it take? Would we even be able to do it? I doubt. And we also have to look @ the right time of Amba's arrival and her wish being fulfilled against Bhisma. Hence, everything takes place at the time decided by god =)
 
Arjun had his clarity of mind too. But the Geeta gyaan was given to him not for he himself. Why would the avtaar of God himself require any confusion to be cleared? But no, it happens. For the future world to understand. And God chose Arjun to get that delivered. Not Bheem. If he had chosen Bheem, we would have gotten the Geetagyan through Bheem and not Arjun. It is all God's play in the end and the roles he chooses. Should we forget this was the SAME Arjun who had single-handedly defeated the Kaurava army that had invaded Virat's kingdom without the Geeta updesh? He was very clear at that time, that too without Lord Krishna.
 
But during the Mahabhart, Geeta was to be told not to Arjun but to the future world. And Arjun was just an instrumental factor for that. And if we talk about interest, then how come only Arjun in the Pandava's had interest? Wouldn't that be for all? I do not see the 'Reliable' factor either. How does that come into play? Was Arjun not reliable? How come? Just because he took the Geeta gyaan? I would repeat the same then, incarnation of sage Nar would not need to be told anything for clarity of mind. It is just for the world's knowledge that they play the role. If we take God himself too, even God performs some act where he ofcourse knows about it but for the world to also know, he does such an act/acts, isn't it.
 
I can also put forth an example, in such a case that of Bheem's anger, which can be taken as his problem, isn't it? In which case, we'll prefer Yudhishtir's peaceful attitude which would lead to better results of a problem. As it said, any decision taken in anger does not always prove to be fruitful as opposed to that which is taken in a calm state. But Bheem was a character with anger and so he did according to that. And Yudhishtir, a man of peace. As according to how their characters must have been skethced by God and how they were to be on Earth.
 
In the end, as I said before, I will say it again, I think it is only God and his will according to which everything is performed and the characters play out their roles as they have to by God's wish. It was not about Arjun not having a clarity of mind hence needing Geeta updesh. The answer lies in your last line itself. For the FUTURE generation, the updesh was given to Arjun. Arjun being the instrument.
 
More importantly, Disclaimer:--
 
^...This is just bcoz I think I have put everything in a random manner bcoz I was having so much 2 say @ that time 😆 
 
LOL. And MOST importanly, dear Shivang, I hope I have not hurt you in any which way by the above reply. That is not intended at all 😳 And I hope I was polite in my response as I tried to be =) If I hurt you or something, then I am really sorry but that is not meant at all 🤗
 
Anku 😊
Edited by ~angelz16~ - 13 years ago
anku- thumbnail
Anniversary 16 Thumbnail Group Promotion 6 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 13 years ago
:O I don't know how I wrote that much :O
But what I am thanking my stars for is that my reply is not to an atheist *phewww* Otherwise toh
ShivangBuch thumbnail
Anniversary 14 Thumbnail Group Promotion 3 Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago

This content was originally posted by: ~angelz16~

 

Hello!!! Firstly, how are you? Hope all is good with you 🤗

 

Okay. If you would allow me to, then I would like to put just a few points of mine in this process =)

 

 

Here I am dear sister. Just became free to reply to your post after many days.🤗

 

When we have to look @ Mahabharat, I think we have to see the role appointed to all the characters by God himself. See, I would not say that Arjun started his actual deed only after his son was killed. I look it as the part from where his role was to start. 😊

 

Of course Aakaanksha. He lifted the bow and started fighting, so his action started immediately after Geeta. But what I meant to say was the implementation was exactly not the way Krishna wanted. He was still not in his full flow due to his emotions for Bhishma. His emotions were still coming in the way of his duty ordered by Krishna to him which he could overcome very slowly with great difficulty understandably due to the relation and his sensitive nature. And he suddenly started fighting at his best due to his anger after Abhimanyu's death. The excellence and unstoppable attack he started to show afterwards was actually the perfection of duty fulfillment Krishna wanted from him. And this is mentioned in Geeta too in Adhyay 18 verses 59 and 60. I think these verses want to mention the same thing.

 

Yad ahankaaram aashritya, na yotsya iti manyase;

Mithyesh vyavasaayaste, prakrutistvaam niyokshyati.

 

Swabhaavjen Kaunteya nibadhdha swen karmana;

Kartum nechchhasi yanmohaat, karishyasyavashopi tat.

 

Krishna wants to say to Arjun that right now, temporarily you are confused and saying that YOU don't want to kill your relatives, but being a kshatriya, you only will be doing the same very act in a few days naturally - accepting challenge in war, fighting for injustice (and taking revenge in a negative sense being aggressive Kshatriya nature too). And he did that naturally reacting to his son's death which he was doing half heartedly just driven by intellect obeying the order of Krishna.

 

 

 

It was not the drama b/w the family where innocents got killed. One of the reasons of  Mahabharat taking place was also because the load of evil was increasing on mother earth. And God comes to earth to decrease that. In such cases, when a war is fought, both evil and innocent get killed. So, in those 10 days, surely many evil souls would have gotten killed too. As they say, during Mahabharat, there was so much bloodshed, that even TODAY, the land of Kurukshetra, when you dig into it, you find the mud RED. There was so much of bloodshed. Everything happened in the course of time it had to, I believe.

 

I accept the point. Definitely many evil men got killed in the process. But there must be some innocent soldiers as well. And even if the soldiers were killed getting their karmphal only destined to be killed in the hands of Bhishma or Arjun; what special privilege the two main warriors were having? Just the relation between them? The difficulty of killing each other being grand father or grand son can be practically understood. Psychologically I am not challenging their actions or calling it a family drama. It is too difficult for them of course. But then dharma can not be biased between your relatives and non-relatives. What is the justification of Bhishma's decision of killing Pandava's soldiers but not Pandavas and thereby showing his loyalty towards Duryodhan? In this complex approach of balancing all his dharmas, what exactly Bhishma is trying to convey? (I actually have not much problem with the death of those soldiers or can't even say that they were innocent really or didn't deserve death or anything but just wanted to emphasize on Bhishma's loose attitude/approach/treatment towards them). What did he prove by killing foot soldiers and showing off his loyalty but being firm in not killing Arjun? And Arjun was extending the damage and victory of dharma by allowing Bhishma to do that and also following the footsteps of his grandsire when his friends on his side were having their eyes completely on his excellence to be demonstrated. If you were not to kill each other and still were ready to fight and continue killing each others' supporters (who were not that directly but only a bit indirectly concerned with the result of the war), what other proper word I could choose other than the word 'drama'? And Arjun knew before waging the war and asking the help of those friends that he would have to put Bhishma out of the way somehow. And then becoming emotional at a crunch moment (at watching the site of gathering of relatives on the battlefield which he would have anyhow perceived when the war was decided) is nothing else but lack of clarity and stability of mind. And this is also acknowledged in Geeta.

 

Kutastva kashmalamidam vishame samupasthitam?

 

Chanchalam hi manah Krushnah, pramaadi balavad drudham.

 

As it said, every move, everything, every moment takes place by the will of God. And when that individual's time comes to bring the action into play, it is done. Hence, Arjun, just played his role as God would have decided for him at the time it was to be done. That is what I understand =)

 

Agreed again. Point well taken. But then even Bheem was chosen for killing Jarasandh, Dushasan and Duryodhan. He was also equally used by Lord to kill the evil. In fact the exact evil rather than good people on the way as obstacle in killing those evils (so one weaker point in favor of Bheem, that he had to kill the people he hated and not who he loved,.becomes stronger on the contrary here in this sense of destined & useful & easy instrument of Lord). And Arjun was even hesitant in killing Kauravas (his step brothers) as per Adhyay 1 of Geeta when they were directly guilty of big crimes left unpunished. 'Aatataayi' is the word used I suppose in Geeta. And Bheem was also given darshan by Lord Hanuman in his large form (though not vishwaroop). He was naturally and instinctively driven to punish the evil and in his decisions, commitments and mindset, was very very simple to understand. And if we say that way, then even Ravan, Kans etc also were born to perform the destined roles in the leela of God to teach the world the lesson through epics. Hiranyakahyapu, Hiranyaaksha, Ravan, Kumbhkarna and Shishupal with his brother were the births of Jay-Vijay who also were devotees of God who were destined to go back to Vaikunth. So if we support Arjun also on that basis, then we can't compare his practical/behavioural characteristics and emotional & intellectual reactions to various situations for the purpose of our learning.

 

 

Bheem on the other hand, killed more of the soldiers while Arjun was to do away with very important personalities. It required emotional support to because it was not just a mere family drama but to kill his OWN grandfather who was very dear to him. If he have to do it today to our own mother or father, tell me how much time would it take? Would we even be able to do it? I doubt. And we also have to look @ the right time of Amba's arrival and her wish being fulfilled against Bhisma. Hence, everything takes place at the time decided by god =)

 

I think I mostly replied to this paragraph in the previous paragraph of mine. If the goodness of Arjun is on the basis of his family bonding or emotions for the dear ones, then Bheem is also not behind in that. Despite being such a powerful man and also not always in agreement with Yudhishthir's views, he always loved his elder and younger brothers and mother in particular too much. His greatness is seen during post vaarnaavat episodes and vanparva greatly. He even weeped while watching his mother and brothers sleeping on the bare earth after Lakshagruh incident when he was patrolling at night. His family bonding was though narrower or much closed one compared to Arjun. Arjun was attached with his Guru and grandsire also whereas Bheem's love and bondage was more for his most direct and closest family members. Only that much is the difference in this argument.

 

 

Arjun had his clarity of mind too. But the Geeta gyaan was given to him not for he himself. Why would the avtaar of God himself require any confusion to be cleared? But no, it happens. For the future world to understand. And God chose Arjun to get that delivered. Not Bheem. If he had chosen Bheem, we would have gotten the Geetagyan through Bheem and not Arjun. It is all God's play in the end and the roles he chooses. Should we forget this was the SAME Arjun who had single-handedly defeated the Kaurava army that had invaded Virat's kingdom without the Geeta updesh? He was very clear at that time, that too without Lord Krishna.

 

Exactly. He was clear in mind in Virat war because the cause was not the land but the protection of the king of Virat as a return of obligation. And he didn't have to kill anyone. Arjun was required to be told Geeta therefore for himself at that time as he was not taking his best out which he already had delivered before considering his duty. At the stage of greater duty than duty during Virat war, Arjun was confused considering it to be a selfish act believing that they were waging war for personal cause. Bheem was not required to be told Geeta at that time. And for the world to know Geeta, we also have character of Uddhav. Krishna also told Geeta to Uddhav named as Uddhav Geeta. Only thing that Geeta is more popular in Hinduism because of the stage during which it was told. The time of Geeta was in the lime light of the entire world whereas Uddhav Geeta was told in the personal palace of Krishna at peace. Arjun was also told Anugeeta later at peace. I think we can give Arjun's curiosity the most credit positively here rather than credit given to his confused mind and thus the world getting Geeta gyan (which was in fact there always before also in the form of Vedas & Upanishads originally told by Lord to Vivasvan/Surya and then further delineated as par Adhyay 4 of Geeta but was lost over a period of time.

 

 

But during the Mahabhart, Geeta was to be told not to Arjun but to the future world. And Arjun was just an instrumental factor for that. And if we talk about interest, then how come only Arjun in the Pandava's had interest? Wouldn't that be for all? I do not see the 'Reliable' factor either. How does that come into play? Was Arjun not reliable? How come? Just because he took the Geeta gyaan? I would repeat the same then, incarnation of sage Nar would not need to be told anything for clarity of mind. It is just for the world's knowledge that they play the role. If we take God himself too, even God performs some act where he ofcourse knows about it but for the world to also know, he does such an act/acts, isn't it.

 

So you believe here that asking of questions by Arjun were for the world to know rather than for himself? OK. Then nothing to argue here and I acknowledge your opinion and view also to be a faithful and possible one. It was the leela of Nar's incarnation too. Even in Geeta, the verses are there for the glory of Arjun.

 

Yatra Yogeshwarah Krushnah, yatra Partho dhanurdharah;

Tatra Shri vijayobhutirdhruva nitirmatirmam. (Last verse of Geeta)

 

(However, these words of praise are the words of Sanjay and Arjun's excellence in archery was world famous by that time)

 

Vrushninaam Vaasudevosmi, Pandavaanaam Dhananjay.

 

(This is the greatest verse in the praise of Arjun. Lord says that among Pandavas, 'I am Arjun')

 

Now this verse of Vibhuti yog puts Arjun's glory in the sky. But then my personal observations and reactions to characteristics of Pandavas are not in harmony with it. I try to harmonize naturally all Dwapar characters with Treta characters and Vaali (Indra putra) and Sugreev (Ram's friend) both had their limitations & imperfections in character and they both share something common with Arjun. Since I look at Arjun (and Karna) related to them, Nar-Narayan mythological story becomes back seat interpretation in my case after this comparison. So either I have to accept this verse as the authoritative declaration of Lord like I believe in every other single statement of Geeta; or else I have to interpret it differently. Lord in the same 'Vibhooti yog' says:

 

Yadyad vibhootimat satva, shreemad oorjeetam ev va;

Tad tad ev avagachchha tvam, mam tejonsh sambhavam.

 

So we can say that intellect of Yudhisthir was vibhooti of lord. Power of Bheem was vibhooti of lord. Any excellence is symbol of God. Then why Arjun is called Lord among Pandavas? I guess it is because of his work excellence (Karmasu kaushalam) in archery and his attractive personality and looks. He had characteristics of both Yudhishthir and Bheem in him. Both peaceloving character and evil punishing character. But he needed Krishna's intellect to supplement the missing part (clarity of mind - mentioned in Geeta) & to guide him to choose the right one at the right time. Both Yudhishtir and Bheem behaved rightfully either naturally or because of pressure/control of each other despite being extremely opposite in nature. Arjun did that under the guidance of Krishna as requested by Indradev. If I can get the insight of the above verse with convincing interpretation,my choice will immediately change because it is God's own sentence spoken. 'I am Dhananjay' in what sense? How? Which characteristic? Was he the soul of all Pandavas therefore? Was he having FLAIR or amusing talent therefore? Was he having skin color like Narayan therefore? Or because he was the best & greatest or noblest in character? The list in Vibhuti yog is illustrative and it is meant only to explain the essence rather than catching words and considering the list to be exhaustive. As a whole in versatility, Arjun may be biggest ANSH of God among Pandavas. But in terms of intellect and knowledge, we have Yudhishthir and in terms of Simplicity and destroying evils, we have Bheem. They have Ishwariya ANSH in the sense of EXTREME characteristics rather than versatility. Specialized nature. Buddhi, Bal.

 

I can also put forth an example, in such a case that of Bheem's anger, which can be taken as his problem, isn't it? In which case, we'll prefer Yudhishtir's peaceful attitude which would lead to better results of a problem. As it said, any decision taken in anger does not always prove to be fruitful as opposed to that which is taken in a calm state. But Bheem was a character with anger and so he did according to that. And Yudhishtir, a man of peace. As according to how their characters must have been skethced by God and how they were to be on Earth.

 

I would put forward here the example of Lakshman also then sister. Like Lakshman's anger was always under control of dharma - obedience of Ram, Bheem's anger was also under outside control of Yudhisthir/Kunti/Krishna and was always naturally against evil only. Bheem has only shown instinctively anger against evil. Arjun also had ego problems. Bhishma's ego or anger also proved to be destructive for his dynasty despite the fact that he was always noble, selfless and sacrificing. So anger problem potentially is dangerous, in Bheem's case always was used by good for good. Bheem is the only Pandav among all 5 who was instinctive, natural & simple in his behaviour reminding me Ramayan characters and Vaanar-Bhalu naturally angry on Ravan for abducting Sita like Bheem naturally getting angry to give justice to Draupadi. I hardly find any action of Bheem which can't be understood by us why he is doing so. Hardly any confusing or puzzling action. Everything understandable if not justifiable at that immediate time.

 

In the end, as I said before, I will say it again, I think it is only God and his will according to which everything is performed and the characters play out their roles as they have to by God's wish. It was not about Arjun not having a clarity of mind hence needing Geeta updesh. The answer lies in your last line itself. For the FUTURE generation, the updesh was given to Arjun. Arjun being the instrument.


Again I would say here the same thing - Ravan was chosen by lord to give certain teachings to future generations. Dhritarashtra was also chosen for the same. And he was also an instrument along with Sanjay in a sense because that is the medium chosen by Ved Vyas to present the dialog between Krishna and Arjun privately exchanged far from all other present at the battlefield. In that case even Dhritarashtra will be better than Bheem but he never grabbed the concept of Geeta then and was hardly interested. 

More importantly, Disclaimer:--

 

^...This is just bcoz I think I have put everything in a random manner bcoz I was having so much 2 say @ that time 😆 

 

LOL. And MOST importanly, dear Shivang, I hope I have not hurt you in any which way by the above reply. That is not intended at all  And I hope I was polite in my response as I tried to be =) If I hurt you or something, then I am really sorry but that is not meant at all 

 

🤗

Anku 😊


🤗Not at all Anku. Can I call you by that name? You were polite. If you are not polite, then I am very rude. And starting was done by me in that case. So then I will have to apologize first. In debate, everyone has to be ready for any logical argument. So no question of being hurt. The poll is precisely for choosing one out five favourite characters and then expressing the reasons for our choice logically. It is about expressing our favourite only subjectively rather than who was greater objectively. We can have any reason for liking someone which we have to compile in words and express. So you have done precisely the same. In fact, I was very excited and satisfied seeing your post. At last my message sparked something in someone to respond aggressively to make the thread going hot. 😃 As long as we are logical in expressing our views, there is no reason why someone should get hurt. Our logic may not convince others is a different thing but for that we can always try our best unless we ourselves are convinced in that process with open mind. And that is the ultimate aim of any debate. Exchange of knowledge and learning by changing each other's false beliefs and attitudes. Either convince or get convinced. This is the ideal rule of this sport. The debate is a sport. So let's play and enjoy it. Polls are meant for it (As long as we try to remain logical). And there is needed always friendly aggression in every sport. Yuvaraj will hit like anything when he is playing against Harbhajan in IPL. But they will still remain best friends. Don't worry at all. And now being even more aggressive than my earlier post, I hope I must have relieved you from that doubt. So if at all you feel hurt due to I sticking to my favourite and not changing my opinion still, you please feel free to tell me that.

 

And rest assured I love Arjun. But I just wanted to compare the brothers keeping the point that 'Arjun was Krishna's best friend and was told Geeta' aside because that can't be the criteria of comparing the characteristics of character directly and independently. We can have a separate topic itself discussing why Krishna might have liked Arjun the most. But who independently can be liked by us as an independent personality through his direct reason and character is a different issue. I just wanted to highlight the fact that Bheem's goodness is mostly underrated by people against Yudhisthir's goodness and Arjun's goodness. And Yudhisthir's goodness, though complicated unlike Bheem's simple to understand goodness, is negatively taken by some people as Janaki wanted to pin point. That's why I had more difficult choice between Yudhishthir (intellectually) and Bheem (emotionally). Majority of people support Arjun just because Geeta or because he was sensitive for the relatives. I therefore tried to go against the tide and went genuinely with my personal emotions. I may be wrong for sure which I clarified I think in my first post saying that "AT THE MOMENT my choice is Bheem". If I have to change my opinion in favour of Arjun due to this poll and if majle bhaiya Bheemsen, loses this poll against Krishna's dear Parth; then my feeling would be same which could be the feeling of Bheemsen himself losing against his younger brother Arjun. Feeling of love and pride. But while playing a sport, Bheemsen would try his best to defeat Arjun (or finally might try to lose also to please his brother). I would even be happy with that. I love this forum family more than my opinions & likes & favourites. But at the moment I have thrown the bowl trying to win the debate seriously 😆. So get ready with your bat and pad.😆 Next time in my next post, out of my great love for my dear sister Anku, I might give a lolly pop full toss and surrender.😃 Or I might try to find some updesh given by Krishna to Bheem also to advocate my client Bheemsen better.😃 O Lola!!! Where are you? I need help of bowling partner.😆 Batsman is very strong.😃 

 

I think only you will have patience Anku to read this long message of mine and nobody else. 😆 Let's find out who else completes this conversation of us.😃

Edited by ShivangBuch - 13 years ago
Vr15h thumbnail
Anniversary 15 Thumbnail Group Promotion 7 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 13 years ago
This content was originally posted by: Vibhishna

As for the Pandavas, my favourite is Bheema. Yudhishtra was the eldest and was respected by the rest of the Pandavas. Arjuna was a favourite of teachers and was close to Sri Krishna. Nakula and Sahadeva were twins and being the youngest were kind of petted by their mother and the other brothers. Also, Bheema was the only one who understood what was happening without a consolation or explanation. Bheema never confronted Sri Krishna when the latter willingly sacrificed the Ghatotkacha to save Arjuna but quietly grieved for his son. Bheema was a true devotee even a better devotee than Arjuna was. For his silent nobility and unwavering faith, I like Bheema the best.


I agree w/ Vibs - Bheema is my favorite by a mile.

The reason being that in the war, Bheema always confronted the toughest enemies, and would always take up the bull by the horns.  For instance, after the killing of Drona, when Ashwathama released the Narayan astra which was destroying the entire Pandava army and Krishna made them disarm quickly to avoid being in its crosshairs, Bheema took up the challenge and decided to confront it, and the result was that the astra stopped attacking anyone else and fully focussed on him, and Krishna & Arjun just managed to save him.  After Draupadi's sons were killed, it was Bheema who attacked Ashwathama, who responded w/ the Brahmashira, and Arjun sent his, and Ashwathama diverted his to  Uttara's womb, and the rest was history.

I know I'll probably get pilloried for this, but I just disdain Yudhisthir, who was good in just delivering morals, and didn't allow his brothers to lift a finger to save Draupadi, but insisted that they save Duryodhan from their ally Chitrasena & the Gandharvas.  But it was Bheema who had the guts to take on the Kauravas and destroy all of them.  After the war, that loser Dhritarashtra & Gandhari were just living on Yudhisthir's misplaced goodwill, and a high-ten to Bheema for sabotaging that.  15 years after the war, he one day boasted to his friends within earshot of Dhritarashtra of how he had killed Duryodhan, and Dhritarashtra finally got to realize that he never really paid for his sins.  This made him go into exile w/ Gandhari & Kunti (whose wife was she anyway?  Ironically, there isn't someone I  loathe more than her in the epic), and after 3 years, a forest fire put them out of everybody's misery.

Unlike Yudhisthir, Bheema was never the 'turn the other cheek' Pandava.  Unlike Yudhisthir, Bheema never had to be shielded from anyone.  I mean, on day 11-14, the Kaurava strategy was to capture Yudhisthir, and  Yudhisthir being a wuss like he was, was vulnerable unless Arjun was w/ him.  On day 17, after Yudhisthir was defeated by Karna, he insulted Arjun for not  killing Karna, and insulted his Gandhiva as well, and Arjun told him that anyone who insults his bow would get killed.  I don't know why  anybody would admire Yudhisthir at all - I can understand people admiring Bhima, Arjun & even Karna.

Also, if Krishna is celebrated due to his mischief in breaking the butter pots, Bheema was funny as well, whether it was eating up Bakasura's meal or the feast he had in the Naga world after he was poisoned.  Somehow, I didn't like his not being able to go to heaven alive just b'cos of his gluttonry.  He should have been alive  today and attending all-you-can-eat feasts in restaurant functions. 😆  Anyway, that's the other endearing thing about him to me.

I just wish the Mahabharat could be re-written w/ Bheema being the eldest, Arjun & Karna both being born to Kunti, and Yudhisthir, rather than Karna being her experimental guinea pig when she wanted to see whether Durvasa's boon worked.  That would have been a great twist. 😈
RamKiSeeta thumbnail
Anniversary 15 Thumbnail Group Promotion 8 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 13 years ago
This content was originally posted by: ShivangBuch

My intellectual choice is Yudhisthir. Personal emotional choice is Bheem. And devotional (being Krishna's devotee) choice is Arjun. 


 
Well put, Shivang!👏 I actually love all three of these characters equally, but there are times during the purana where I feel a tad bit annoyed with some and admire the other.
 
I love Yudhisthir because he is the perfect example of never giving in to peer pressure. Even Lord Krishna admired this of him. Dharmaraj always stood up for what was scripturely right even if society was against him. Though his own brothers were in favor of war, he tried to avert it till the very last minute because he knew the bloodshed would affect everyone, not just the Kauravas. Yudhisthir was the most intelligent out of all of them, he was a true Gyaani, but he was misunderstood by many many people, even today, because he did not act how everyone else wanted him to. He was not hasty like the others, and he was not constantly after blood or his own selfish interests. Many people even today do not agree with some of the facets of Dharma and Adharma, and they consider Yudhisthir a weakling because of adherig to Dharma like glue....but in the end, it was Yudhisthir who was rewarded for his morality. Whether we like it or not, Dharma is Dharma and Adharma is Adharma. Though sometimes Dharma may seem the 'easy way' out of things or the wrong way to us, we are not ones to decide what is Dharma and Adharma, right?
 
I love Bhima because of his practical nature and his immense loyalty to his family. He was always loyal to his brothers, and he was fiercely protective of Draupadi and loved her even more than his brothers did. Bhima, like Lakshman, is like the ideal younger brother even with his faults....but one thing about him that annoyed me is that he was often hasty and did things before thinking them through. Krishna once pointed this out to him as well, that hastyness gets us nowhere...there were times when Bhima rued his actions, and though MB points out gluttony as his fault, I think hastyness was his true fault...somehow, overeating does not seem like a fault to me. It's rather cute actually.😆
 
I love Arjun, because like you said, he was one of the ideal devotees. He submersed himself in Krishna and blindly followed everything the latter told him because of his faith. He is the example of how a true devotee of God should be like. Arjun never questioned Krishna even when sone of the latters' actions seemed questionable. Likewise, we should never question Gods' commands and deeds...they were done for a reason and we should find the moral lesson behind that. I find Arjun a perfect example of this. Krishna was not merely his friend. He was his wellwisher, his lord....and Krishna showed him his Vishva Roop because he was the only one of the Pandavas who realized this. Though his fault was pride from time to time, Arjun displayed such unending devotion to Krishna that we should try to imitate. Instead of quesitoning God and questioning his actions like many people today do, we should submerse ourselves in devotion to him and find the deeper meaning of the scriptures instead of finding faults in them and criticizing them.
 
So yeah, I liked your answer because it pretty much sumed up why I love these three Pandavas so much.😆
RamKiSeeta thumbnail
Anniversary 15 Thumbnail Group Promotion 8 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 13 years ago
This content was originally posted by: _Vrish_

I just wish the Mahabharat could be re-written w/ Bheema being the eldest, Arjun & Karna both being born to Kunti, and Yudhisthir, rather than Karna being her experimental guinea pig when she wanted to see whether Durvasa's boon worked.  That would have been a great twist. 😈

 
If holy scriptures could be rewritten and changed based on people's interests and personal favorites, the meaning behind the purana would be gone.😊 Mahabharat is not merely some story with a lot of fighting...it is one of our holy scriptures in which many important life lessons exist about Dharma and Adharma.
ShivangBuch thumbnail
Anniversary 14 Thumbnail Group Promotion 3 Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago
This content was originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

 
Well put, Shivang!👏 I actually love all three of these characters equally, but there are times during the purana where I feel a tad bit annoyed with some and admire the other.
 
I love Yudhisthir because he is the perfect example of never giving in to peer pressure. Even Lord Krishna admired this of him. Dharmaraj always stood up for what was scripturely right even if society was against him. Though his own brothers were in favor of war, he tried to avert it till the very last minute because he knew the bloodshed would affect everyone, not just the Kauravas. Yudhisthir was the most intelligent out of all of them, he was a true Gyaani, but he was misunderstood by many many people, even today, because he did not act how everyone else wanted him to. He was not hasty like the others, and he was not constantly after blood or his own selfish interests. Many people even today do not agree with some of the facets of Dharma and Adharma, and they consider Yudhisthir a weakling because of adherig to Dharma like glue....but in the end, it was Yudhisthir who was rewarded for his morality. Whether we like it or not, Dharma is Dharma and Adharma is Adharma. Though sometimes Dharma may seem the 'easy way' out of things or the wrong way to us, we are not ones to decide what is Dharma and Adharma, right?
 
I love Bhima because of his practical nature and his immense loyalty to his family. He was always loyal to his brothers, and he was fiercely protective of Draupadi and loved her even more than his brothers did. Bhima, like Lakshman, is like the ideal younger brother even with his faults....but one thing about him that annoyed me is that he was often hasty and did things before thinking them through. Krishna once pointed this out to him as well, that hastyness gets us nowhere...there were times when Bhima rued his actions, and though MB points out gluttony as his fault, I think hastyness was his true fault...somehow, overeating does not seem like a fault to me. It's rather cute actually.😆
 
I love Arjun, because like you said, he was one of the ideal devotees. He submersed himself in Krishna and blindly followed everything the latter told him because of his faith. He is the example of how a true devotee of God should be like. Arjun never questioned Krishna even when sone of the latters' actions seemed questionable. Likewise, we should never question Gods' commands and deeds...they were done for a reason and we should find the moral lesson behind that. I find Arjun a perfect example of this. Krishna was not merely his friend. He was his wellwisher, his lord....and Krishna showed him his Vishva Roop because he was the only one of the Pandavas who realized this. Though his fault was pride from time to time, Arjun displayed such unending devotion to Krishna that we should try to imitate. Instead of quesitoning God and questioning his actions like many people today do, we should submerse ourselves in devotion to him and find the deeper meaning of the scriptures instead of finding faults in them and criticizing them.
 
So yeah, I liked your answer because it pretty much sumed up why I love these three Pandavas so much.😆


Yes Janaki. That sentence was the summary of my thoughts too. Perfect one you chose from my posts. And how well the thoughts match because I can also quote your entire post analyzing all the three together so nicely. I agree with almost every single word you wrote. Regarding Yudhisthir, I can come up with huge essay copying straight from Orkut where I had assumed the advocacy of him 😆 and you can also post our MB CC article posted by Lola. Regarding Bheem's hastiness, I take your 'CUTE' part of the post instead of 'ANNOYING' part 😊😃because there is hardly any action of Bheem I find annoying. This is because even Lakshman was also exactly hasty in the similar fashion. Thinking after acting. Hasty judgments. Prejudiced reactions. And also the judgments which could lead to great undesirable destructions. But we never feel annoyed with him and always love and enjoy his innocence and cuteness. They were just natural instincts but were always under the control of right people EVENTUALLY to be used properly (Ram/Krishna/Yudhishthir). And credit for that should also go to their devotee soul. Though Bheem's relation with Krishna and his devotion are not explicit but are silent (being elder cousin), I still can feel them somewhere deep down the line to be present in their own style. And Arjun's surrender (logical questioning was there in Geeta but that was out of curiosity so it is not in the nature of countering or disagreeing) to Krishna makes me think about him too equally. So yes. All are equal for both of us. But I voted for Bheem because as an independent personality (Not bringing Krishna in the discussion), I love his all actions and also I wanted to balance out the voting because I knew most of the people would go for Arjun. I wanted to bring the underrated goodness and greatness of Bheem to the highlight and also I think that thinking from the view that 'Arjun, by behaving like common men like us with confused mind, gave the world the Geeta and was chosen by Krishna for that' would have been unfair reasoning for Yudhishthir and Bheem when we are comparing the direct personality traits of 3 of them. But my vote could have gone to any of them. Yudhishthir is misunderstood by people I agree. So I have decided to bring my Orkut posts here also in my next post just to express my views completely. But they are just my logical interpretations and opinions about Yudhishthir. I respect Yudhishtir more obviously but while voting I went with my heart rather than the brain and also clarified that the voting was as per my present preference (and also, incidentally, the question of the poll happens to be 'WHO IS YOUR FAVOURITE PANDAV?' rather than 'WHO WAS THE GREATEST PANDAV IN YOUR OPINION?'😃 Right?). It might change who knows. But in my heart, at the moment, Bheem's natural instinctive great actions stand very tall (due to big big reason of its connection with some Ramayan characters). And Ramayan has always been closest to my heart.
Edited by ShivangBuch - 13 years ago
ShivangBuch thumbnail
Anniversary 14 Thumbnail Group Promotion 3 Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago
In the Orkut thread on Yudhishthir, members (my very good friend) had the hatred for Yudhishthir with certain arguments with reference to a particular biased article that (1) He was coward and hence not willing to go for the war and fight against injustice, (2) He was lusty for the kingdom, (3) He was too much forgiving making his too good approach annoying, (4) He was a man of show-off. Surprisingly he liked Yudhishtir's calm and emotionally stable answers to Yaksha's questions very much and I just don't like (with respect to the 3rd point of excessive goodness above) Yudhishthir offering Duryodhan to choose any one Pandav to fight at the lake and he interfering in the matter of Gandharvas in the Vanparva to send his brothers to save Duryodhan (Of course dhyutkrida apart obviously and he abusing Gandiv is the incident also out of similar momentary excitement of the situation with temporary loss of control over mind being exceptional moments of not liking his particular actions rather than nature in general in normal circumstances and the Gandiv one not part of 3rd point above). 


What was my response to him was just logical by harmonizing the entire epic (mainly just BRC MB serial for me at that time). Here are my Orkut posts which I have tried to edit and keep as far as possible relevant to this poll by just taking out some parts of the thread:



"Even I don't like his forgiving approach at places. For example, Gandharva incident and at the lake offering Duryodhan to fight with anyone.

But how can you trap a person from two sides? I am not addressing you here but in general.

(1) Why did he fight against elders for KINGDOM?
(2) Why was he not greatly inclined to take revenge of Draupadi?

How both is possible? How the two criticisms can be made together? Why did he go for the war? Why was he not inclined for the war? This reminds me the dialog of 'Damini' movie of 90s. Agar Damini chaalaak hai to paagal nahi ho sakti aur agar paagal hai to chaalaak nahi ho sakti. If any one consistent point of argument is put forward, then only the defense lawyer can prepare his defense for one criticism at a time.

Preeching Draupadi to cool her down was necessary till the appropriate time because she was over reacting so much to bring the entire world under destruction for the sake of punishing two three people who were even liable to be punished even before her marriage for Lakshagruh but were forgiven by the same person Yudhishthir and under his obidience by his brothers. That was his personal value (Just like pratigyaa or daanveerta) which he was imparting to others. Values (personal specific identified qualities/virtue/rules for life/dharma) need not match with universal principle or sanaatan dharma on the earth (which only Krishna followed throughout going beyond all qualities but just to ensure 'Dharmasansthaapan' in general) and he need not be right in his stance all the time in all situations following kshama/satyabhaashan as an objective rule rigidly. But that was no way a vice. I mean he did forgive Duryodhan for Lakshagruh incident also when Draupadi was not there in the picture at all. He was consistent in forgiving people even for the wrong done to him. And had he & his intellect not been there, all Pandavas would have burnt in the Lac palace. Arjun's archery and Bheem's strength would have been of no use. And had his dharma's control not been there, Pandavas would have also got the blame of initiating war themselves with the family elders.

He also knew that Draupadi was responsible earlier for Duryodhan's and more gravely Dhritaraashtra's insult. (Bol amolak bol hai, bol sake to bol; pahele bheetar tol ke, phir mukh baahar khol). He also knew he himself was badly guilty for gambling Draupadi being husband and the main protector of the wife. The king and the elders of the family who are the ultimate protectors of the citizens and family members respectively were also silent observers and having the burden of the same sin. Therefore, rather than revenge seeking, setting a good example and waiting till appropriate time was important and killing Kauravas only after they initiate was important as Krishna tells Bheem regarding his oath to be inferior to humanity (Krishna's dialog is there very clear saying to Bheem that he should even be ready to break his oath if humanity & human lives are saved by that). Yudhishthir had the CONSISTENT nature of avoiding war. He did punish Jaydrath as per the wish of Draupadi. And in fact HASTY punishment to Keechak created confusion regarding the success of completion of Agnyaatvaas. Entire one year's hard work would have been wasted had they had to go for exile for another 12 years.


Now sentences like - Kshama hi dharm hai etc etc 😃

That may not be WISE sentence according to circumstances in my opinion but not the VICE but the virtue of Yudhisthir for sure. If one believes it to be his cowardliness or excuse for running away from the situation that he had to confront, then I can't help it. I don't have any knowledge of or reasoning for his exact state of mind. I can only empathize him from his over all character and judge the possible state of mind of his different actions in different situations provided he is the same consistent person.

And even Krishna tried to explain Draupadi for forgiveness. He knew it was never going to happen and it was wise that war starts and responsibles are punished. But just to cool down the emotions and negative feelings inside, that was required.

Krishna wanted dharmyuddh from Pandava side and not personal mission either for kingdom or revenge for wife. If protection of women's rights was sanaatan dharm required to be ensured, innocents are not killed was also the sanaatan dharm required to be ensured. Things were needed to be properly planned such that war is initiated from Kaurava's side.

Adhyay 16 of Geeta enumerates all such virtues like daanveerta, kshama, daya, satya, ahinsa, kisi ke prati shatrubhaav na hona, etc. are the qualities/VIRTUES of dev/sajjan aatma. (In the same adhyay, aasuri sampada/VICES is also discussed.)

Yudhishthir and Karna had some of these qualities. However, these sadguna (Daivi sampada) are also not free from the bondage with ego. When Ram asks Vashishth in Gurukul as per the Ramayan serial: "Punya kya hai, paap kya hai?" Then Guru answers:"Dono jhanzeeren hain. Ek sone ki. Ek lohe ki. Punya me bhi ek darr hai. Woh ahankaar paida kar sakta hai." Gunaateet state of mind is beyond having such qualities. Clear mind, minute knowledge of every dharma and priorities of virtues required to be practiced in dilemma/dharmsankat situation (WISDOM), and always working for and breathing for sanaatan dharma/noble cause/parmaarth is the nature of God's incarnation rather than specializing in few of such qualities under all circumstances.

I also would like to follow Yudhishthir's policy of forgiving, tolerance and truth of speech; but then we shouldn't have ego of keeping our particular image at the time of sacrificing that virtue for a greater cause (which he did soon after hesitance of a moment or two while speaking his famous half truth 'Naro va kunjaro va').

Yes. He was greatly calm and unaffected too while answering Yaksha's questions. And emotionally unaffected behaviour on the death of relatives by a knowledgeable person is by no way equivalent to selfishness. I knew that you like answers of Yudhishthir to Yaksha. And if you believe them to be true, why don't you question the harmony of your own thoughts about Yudhishthir throughout the epic? How a lusty or show-off making person could answer such questions? Correct conclusion can only be derrived after harmonized and integrated approach and not by quoting 5-6 incidents of life in a 10 page article analyzed by own one dimensional point of view. And a few black spots in a white cloth catch more attention than the entire black cloth. We can't put forward few black incidents in white character throughout the life to say that the entire character is black completely closing our eyes when we come across his good points practiced throughout the life.

Basically, that argument of Yudhishthir as a performer or an actor is a laughable one somewhat and not digestible by the author of the article. Don't you agree that your author thinks himself to be even smarter than the people of that time who could not guage Yudhishthir? If Yudhishthir was performer, then Bhishma, Dron, Kripacharya and Vidur were the biggest idiots of the history!!!! You can't hold on negative emotions for a character after such a great logical effort of mine to convince you (Without any aim of influencing you by my views) by only trying to harmonize your thoughts throughout the epic.

When Vidur arrives at Kampilya after Draupadi swayamvar with a message to carry Pandavas back, Yudhishthir asks to the people: "Kya ham kaakaashri se milne chalen?". At that time, KRISHNA stops him saying, "Nahi yuvraj/bade bhaiya, yeh kudhaaranaaon se bachne ke din hai. Jo kuchh kijiye, sab ke saamne kijiye taaki sab log sun sake aur dekh saken ke unhone kya prashn kiya aur aapne uska kya uttar diya." When Yudhishthir goes to the opposite side to ask for the permission for the war, Bhishma was also waiting for him expecting him to come precisely at that time. And Karna was not meeting Krishna, Bhishma openly because he always had some secret discussions about himself and his life rather than to hide his greatness. Expressing neutrally the way you are is not a show-off.

And also lusty and show off performer Yudhishthir is inconsistent with our effort of understanding Krishna's nature of dharmsansthaapan. It simply doesn't match and is an obstacle in the path of devotion (otherwise why Krishna would support him to make him the emperor of entire Aaryaavart?).

You took the debate wonderfully and sportily, as I said I was not there to influence anyone. And I can clearly make out, it is next to impossible for any no 1 lawyer PHD in Mahabharat to generate love in you for Yudhishthir. Ha ha ha. So, definitely I can never dare to have that foolish aim. 😃. But my suggestion is that practice of empathy with multidimensional possibility of state of mind will help you over here if you are not close minded (I mean you are not the one who just doesn't want to change one's strong childhood emotions at all)." 

Edited by ShivangBuch - 13 years ago
Vr15h thumbnail
Anniversary 15 Thumbnail Group Promotion 7 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 13 years ago
Some of the above criticisms of Yudhisthir - like why did he fight for his kingdom - are way over the top, and arguments that can only be made by pro-Kaurava people.  Since I haven't read what Yudhisthir haters elsewhere had to write, I can't comment on that, but I'll still maintain that it's perfectly possible to critique him w/o being obnoxious (however, insulting him, like calling him a coward, is fair game, if one can demonstrate that from his actions)

My criticism of Yudhisthir comes from the following:
  • The Gandharva incident - if it was so important to save the Kauravas b'cos they were 'blood-relatives and the Gandharvas were outsiders' (this was the reason Yudhisthir gave Bhima & Arjun, who were happy @ the developments: what BS - in the Kurukshetra war, kingdoms like Matsya, Chedi, Magadha, Kekaya et al were outsiders, whereas Bheeshma, the Kauravas themselves, were family), why didn't St Yudhisthir himself go into battle w/ Chitrasena, instead of forcing his unwilling bros to go?  Too busy w/ his precious yagna?  Total hypocrite - would take a unpopular stand, and send his brothers to do the deed, instead of doing it himself.  And I daresay a coward as well - was he afraid of facing Chitrasena?
  • Draupadi's disrobing - I'll grant that Yudhisthir made a mistake in gambling his kingdom and brothers & wife, but where I do object - his preventing his brothers from protecting Draupadi from Dushashan, first when she was being dragged in, and later, when she was being disrobed.  Heck, he could have allowed them to beat up the Kauravas, and later done penance for breaking his vow, just like Indra did after kiling Vritra.  Combining this reaction of Yudhisthir's w/ his previous one, and he comes out as a total ethical retard
  • In the war itself, the reason the strategy on days 11-14 revolved around him was that if he was captured, he'd agree to play a game of dice on Shakuni's terms, and again lose.  As a result, the Pandavas had to plan their entire strategy on protecting him, and in the process, lost several of their best warriors, including the would-be Yuvraj Abhimanyu.  If this had not been a problem w/ Yudhisthir, or if Yudhisthir had said that for the good of his kingdom & his army (his lie to Drona was after all for the sole purpose of saving his army from being anhilated) he was not going to agree to a game if he was captured, but would simply hand over leadership to Bhima (let them try capturing him!!!) this tactic of Duryodhan would have been useless.  Also, if Yudhisthir had a command succession strategy whereby if he was killed or even captured, Bhima would be his successor as the Pandava king, such a strategy wouldn't even have been thought of by the Kauravas.
  • On the 17th day, Karna defeated Yudhisthir and captured & then released him, recalling his promise to that other coward Kunti.  Yudhisthir returned to his camp humiliated, and Krishna & Arjun came to see how he was.  He then berated Arjun for coming to see him w/o killing Karna, and even insulted his Gandhiva.  Arjun got infuriated @ his bow being insulted, and reminded him that nobody who insulted his bow lived to speak about it.  Krishna took him away telling him that they needed to fight Karna.  Point here - Yudhisthir can't do something himself, and then has the gall to insult someone who can for not doing it.
  • In the RS Ramayan, Rama told Shatrughan that a king should always ride ahead of his army, to show them that he's willing to be the first to face danger, and protect them.  Yudhisthir, by contrast, instead of being a protector, had to be protected himself.  There is a simple word to describe him: c-o-w-a-r-d
  • Pandu too was king, but instead of sending Bheeshma, he went on his conquests himself and made Hastinapur a big empire.  When Yudhisthir was crowned ruler of Indraprastha, he did nothing of that sort, but instead sent his brothers.
I don't criticise Yudhisthir for offering Duryodhan to fight anybody of his choice, or lying to Drona (I actually praise him for that, that's one of the few good things he did in my book).  Nor do I fault him for picking Nakul & Sahadev when his father Yamraj asked him who he wanted to revive @ the lake.  And he was certainly noble in swargalok when he told Indra that he'd rather stay in hell w/ his brothers than in heaven w/ Duryodhan.

But while he may have been justified in trying to calm Draupadi during the year of incognito, his refusal to protect her or let his brothers do it show him as a coward.  Nothing more, nothing less.
Edited by _Vrish_ - 13 years ago