Favorite Pandav from Mahabharat and why?? - Page 3

By saying that I am successful in giving you the multiple possible view, at last I am fully satisfied that you acknowledged the LOGICAL PART of my effort rather than calling it just an excellent literary piece of ART work.😊 As I said, my objective was never to give you MY view (As I was not present in Dwapar and could not read people's mind and also have not read the epic fully) but A DIFFERENT POSSIBLE view (As different states of mind can lead to same action and harmonized way of thinking is necessary); I feel at this point itself I have succeeded. This acknowledgement of yours clearly shows that you have made an attempt to go through the logical arguments also and you are not close minded because close minded person is the person who only understands which he wants to understand.

Regarding calling Yudhishthir 'Dharm'-'raaj', well I can sense what you want to say now over here objectively. Yudhishthir was just a person who had good knowledge of dharma and that too gross one and not the subtle one. That's it and not icon of dharma. He was just known by that name by the people of THAT TIME unanimously only because nobody else bothered AS A KING (So Bhishma & Vidur excluded over here and Pandu ended his great going journey earlier) to implement DHARMA so vastly overall in the action as a RAJA. His attitude to run the kingdom is rewarded over here in his image and not few exceptional behaviors. He always tried to stick to dharma throughout major part of his life as AN ATTITUDE and missed a few critical goals so far as decision making is concerned (Like Kabir Khan missed against Pakistan in Hockey final ).

Without comparing Yudhishthir with Ram, I agree that if there is any real symbol (icon) of Dharma, it was Maryada Purushottam. He established dharma of a son, an elder brother, a husband, a friend, a kshatriya, a king and above all sanaatan dharma. But in Dwapar, he (Ram = Krishna) himself chooses Yudhishthir to be only the appropriate person to reconstruct the society, to carry forward the values to next era [(Like he selected the king in Matsyaavtaar) and not as a man setting examples of so many roles as he had already done that in Treta] and assuming himself even a greater role that of a leader and philosopher of universal dharma & great trio GKB (Gnyaan, Karma & Bhakti). In Buddhaavtaar, he even assumes bigger role - the icon of supreme state of spirituality which was an example not for a common man but for a very limited mass of upgraded souls (And people made it a separate religion of common man 😊).

Here one should be very clear first of all in one's own mind exactly for what reason one hates/dislikes/less likes Yudhishthir and should make it clear so that other person can accordingly counter comment.

If you don't like Yudhishthir because

(1) He was too much good unnecessary at times - Then ask first to yourself whether it is virtue or vice and whether it was consistently followed or not - Just Yes or No with reason.

(Kshama was even suggested by Krishna to Draupadi but over there you lack harmony - The one who himself has followed the virtue consistently in the past when injustice was done to him can only and always dare to console other person to follow that virtue irrespective of the hight of injustice done to that person - and disrobing happened itself is proven greatly debatable)

(2) He was a bad guy (Lusty, selfish, etc.) - Then ask first to yourself why Krishna supported him. Did Krishna support ADHARMA? - Just Yes or No with reason.

(3) He was pretending to be a better guy than he was (performer, actor, etc.) - Then ask first to yourself why Vidur, Bhishma, Dron, Krip all couldn't notice that when they did understand Shakuni very well. Was Yudhishthir wiser than Shakuni or Bhishma, Dron etc were biggest stupids? - Just Yes or No with reason.

On what grounds you are debating (1), (2) or (3) should be made clear. Because all three simultaneously can't be handled and not possible to exist in the mind of a person who logically dislikes him but only a biased guy can put forward all the three reasons together.


And reflecting over and answering of above three questions in yes or no is HARMONIZED APPROACH.

And let me define also empathy now. Empathy means to step into the shoes of the other person you are analyzing. Imagining and feeling his emotions, reactions to a situation and thinking about his possible state of mind while actually acting in some manner according to the consistency of his nature and character."

My post at Orkut continue.... (similar to this view point of mine, Lola had posted an article in MB CC)

"Now let me try to explain Yudhishthir psychologically during dhyut (Not morally - Morally what he did was wrong which he admits and does the praayashchitt without compelling anybody else to do it with him and Krishna also acknowledges both - his wrong deed and praayashchitt.)

(1) He put his kingdom at stake: That was his first basic mistake rather than putting brothers on stake. You simply can't leave people (Who elected you to be their king) on mercy of a man who would be eager to exploit and avenge those civilions. But then he always wanted to avoid war (Blood bleeding) and dhyut in the serial is picturized as an alternative of war in which anyhow the kingdom had to be put at stake though not so easily but trusting on own powers.

(2) He put his brothers at stake: To win the kingdom, king sends first his warriors to fight. And winning the kingdom need not be for himself (His own lust). It would be his duty more than the right to take back the kingdom for those Hastinapur people who preferred to stay at Indraprastha. He simply could not put them at the mercy of Duryodhan as I said. It was his duty out of sense of guit to get back the kingdom to make justice with his brothers only who would have wanted it as they had toiled hard for its construction. And he used them only first to make justice to them. If at all there was mistake, it was of starting the gamble and gambling the kingdom first. If you consider it as an alternative of war, he just used his available weapons till the last one. He also gambled himself for his brothers (Now what lust overthere? He staked his freedom for his loyal brothers to maintain unity in any situation of life). I agree over here that brothers were not a commodity and that's why I said I am only going to try and explain his behaviour psychologically and not morally.

(3) He put Draupadi at stake: A big moral blunder. But then, logically, she had already become wife of slaves. What is the difference between slave and wife of slaves?

I mean what is the difference in a sense of freedom (I may be wrong in this so just asking) and status. And Pandavas always wanted to stay unite. And Draupadi was the greatest thread for that. Aur patni ka maan sammaan pati ke maan sammaan se alag thodi hai. When Yudhishthir put her at stake in strong motion of hold of dhyut (He had lost his sense completely at that time), he would absolutely have no idea out of innocence (As he came with a good intention of permanently winning the heart of Duryodhan and make peace forever) that Duryodhan & co. could do anyway near to their sister in law what they tried to do in front of all elders particularly in her state at that time. Aur daasi ke upar to swami ke adhikaar ki koi seema nahi hoti. Can it be applied to physical harassment also? If that was legal for das-dasi, then was that the culture of Kuruvansh/aaryavart 😔?

And if we are shocked with what he did, if one tries to empathize him, he was equally shocked. Poor fellow could not understand what was happening. More than the greed of kingdom, he had over confidence on his ability in the game like Duryodhan, Bheem, Karna and Arjun had on their powers. That was being broken consistently and he was going through the motion of guilty consciousness of losing earlier things and to square off those, he was risking to commit another guilt. He had never looked at kingdom to be his right on it. He always had the post of the king to be the servant of people. He always took it as his duty. And for this momentary flow of lack of control over mind, he did undergo repenting excile for which the so called BRAVE Duryodhan would never have dared. He would have killed himself and/or his MAMA.

If one starts looking at the "Kingdom" to be the "Responsibility" [towards people who put faith on you daring to bear the dislike of your enemy], rather than your "Property", then one would agree that to win it back is not your 'right' but it becomes your 'duty' towards your loving and beloved prajaa to save them from the ruling hands of that enemy which could revenge those civilians for not electing his kinghood. (Counter argument of lusty Yudhishthir).

Now these are all again positive POSSIBLE views I have thrown in your minds for Yudhishthir which you might never have thought. They are not necessarily correct views and they are also not my concluded opinions since I have already mentioned he is complex character to understand and I would better avoid to do."

Originally posted by: _Vrish_

Thank you for your responses.  I'm glad to see an objective analysis of Yudhisthir's actions, rather than just a boilerplate endorsement of anything & everything he did.  I largely accept many of the points you wrote - would have to revisit the ones where I might disagree.

Not at all. Sure. No problem. That is what we are here for. In debate, we are bound to have different opinions and views and we are bound to disagree. And by being aggressive and then giving response to others' aggression, we can bring out more defensive arguments which otherwise the person wouldn't have brought out despite knowing or believing. If we are open minded and still have independent judgmental abilities, objective debates help a lot in balancing each others' thinking and removing each others' wrong or biased beliefs. The rule of great debate should be "either convince or get convinced".

Two things though.  I'd not use BRC's Mahabharat as authentic at all - he took major liberties w/ the story, and once one does that, who's to condemn Ekta or Peter Brooke?  No, I'd rather someone argue either from the texts, or from popular readings - even the ACKs are by & large okay.

Yes. BRC MB had its inaccuracies but it also had great teachings through its interpolated dialogs also and very very extra ordinary interpretation of Bhagwad Geeta's essence and its Karmyog in all dialogs. Actually the Orkut community of this discussion is MB serial community rather than MB epic community. That's why in my responses to my friend, serial dialogs were quoted wherever anything was written in Hindi. I have not read the epic but I access KMG translation whenever I want to confirm about any specific event arising in the discussions or in mind. I would say for knowing about events, one should refer to text. But just like one can learn from any great message giving movie even, the serial has no wrong value to teach. It might misguide viewers about the characters' actual truth but what people will like in those characters will be good point only. I mean if Yudhishthir or Karna are shown to be greater or better in the serial than actual, people will like them more than they should but what they will like will be their virtues only (whether actually present or not). But while discussing in debate about a character, I prefer to come up with homework of epic.


But then again, if one were to compare Rama & Yudhisthir, can one even conceive of Rama being unable to defeat an enemy and being vulnerable to being captured unless Lakshman or Shatrughan intervened to save him?  But that's how it was w/ Yudhisthir.

OMG!! Please don't take me wrong over here otherwise all sisters in the forum would like to slap me.😆 Not at all. I haven't compared Ram with Yudhishthir. Being Ram's devotee, I couldn't do it obviously so in fact, I precisely had clarified that in the beginning of that paragraph. Putting 5 Pandavas together also wouldn't make them equal to Ramji for Ramji being Krishna only and divine incarnation of Lord. I actually only used Ramji's 'MARYADA PURUSHOTTAM' image to explain my point. Like Ram had that image and he actually was in all facets, Yudhishthir had the tag of 'DHARMRAJ' given by contemporary people (not in all facets but only as ruler of kingdom) of Dwapar. And that also not necessarily to be actually the follower of subtle dharma in all actions but being son of dharma and having that tag assigned, he should be having at least the constant mental attitude to do that and relatively to other kings (Krishna, Vidur & Bhishma therefore not considered), he should be wise enough to know all niti/policies of that time better. And Krishna who became ideal king (out of several other roles) as Ramji in previous birth chose Yudhishthir himself to carry forward good values to next generation (first generation of Kaliyug). Similar to he making Sugreev and Vibhishan the kings by removing their wrong doer brothers out of throne. Krishna also did that with Shishupal's and Jarasandh's sons. After defeating a king, winning the heart of the people of that kingdom by making their own original prince the king with generosity. The only difference is that Ram still remained the emperor - king of kings and Krishna never assumed that role. At the most we can compare Yudhisthir with Vibhishan in terms of situation but Vibhishan was chosen to rule only raakshasa race and Yudhisthir was chosen to rule the entire aaryaavarta. Anyway, that comparison also can't be made being the characters of different eras and also Vibhishan being very big big devotee also and a character simple to understand like most others in Ramayan. The point I was making is that Ram (Krishna) himself chose Yudhishthir for dharmasansthaapan (like choice of confusing mind of Arjun for Geetagyan to be given) to be the deserving ideal king; he should be dhaarmik in general (like Arjun should be character prone to unstable mind easily in general). I mean he may or may not be but as Krishna devotees, for all of us in the forum, either leaving Yudhisthir's character to be analyzed or trying to make our mind positive for Yudhishthir is more pacifying than doubting him.