Mythological Masti

   

Favorite Pandav from Mahabharat and why?? (Page 3)

Poll Question: Who is your favorite Pandav from the Mahabharat??

Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
3 [15.79%]
5 [26.32%]
11 [57.89%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Post Reply New Post

Page 3 of 5

Page 1 Page 2
Page   of 5
Page 4 Page 5

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 44838

Posted: 15 January 2011 at 10:02am | IP Logged
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!Clap 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.LOL
 
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.LOL

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

ShivangBuch

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Favorite Pandav from Mahabharat and why?? (Page 3)" in Mythological Masti 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!

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 44838

Posted: 15 January 2011 at 10:04am | IP Logged
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. Evil Smile
 
If holy scriptures could be rewritten and changed based on people's interests and personal favorites, the meaning behind the purana would be gone.Smile 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.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

ShivangBuchlola610

ShivangBuch

Goldie

ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1045

Posted: 15 January 2011 at 10:42am | IP Logged
Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

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!Clap 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.LOL
 
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.LOL

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 LOL 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 SmileBig smilebecause 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?'Big smile 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 - 15 January 2011 at 11:12am

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

lola610..RamKiJanaki..

ShivangBuch

Goldie

ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1045

Posted: 15 January 2011 at 9:50pm | IP Logged
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 Big smile

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. Big smile. 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 - 15 January 2011 at 10:15pm

.Vrish.

Viewbie

.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 20949

Posted: 16 January 2011 at 1:22am | IP Logged
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_ - 16 January 2011 at 1:32am

ShivangBuch

Goldie

ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1045

Posted: 16 January 2011 at 3:46am | IP Logged
Originally posted by _Vrish_

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.  

Yes. I agree with your point. And glad you read the entire post with such interest and depth.

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)

Again I agree that he was not a perfect human being (not a single Pandav for that matter and despite known as dharmaraj, was prone to mistakes, shortcomings and weaknesses. I didn't post that article link because it was extremely biased one and hence not worth posting. But the link of that blog is still there in Orkut thread.

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?
Yes I have difficulty to accept his needless goodness here in this incident. As someone else was punishing Duryodhan for his wrong deed, he could have remained neutral. I don't know about the epic but in the serial he showed readiness to go himself (possibly BRC's interpretation) if Arjun-Bheem were not ready to go to save Duryodhan and Bheem accepted it as he wanted to punish Duryodhan himself to fulfill his oath. Also as per the serial, he was determined to undergo exile himself alone and others only joined him voluntarily. Exile was only given to him and he was in no mood to twist the shaastra 13 days = 13 years for his personal benefit and took the exile as his penance. He did his best to forgive the relatives and did he best for the peace in the family. Later on he had no choice but to fight against relatives as he had to maintain balance between two parties. After fulfilling the condition of 13 years, he couldn't stick to his personal policy of forgiveness when his industrious and deserving powerful brothers were undergoing pains with him. For them also, he had to ask the kingdom and for the justice to Draupadi eventually at the right time in the right manner. There was pressure for the war from all the sides. And he was still ready to do with only 5 villages. If he is guilty of waging war against relatives, it is those relatives who forced him to do so after long tolerance and patience by firstly doing injustice and then sticking to Kaurava's side under the reason of loyalty. In fact, when Yudhishthir committed finally himself for the war, that was absolutely necessary and required change in mindset of his peaceloving mentality. And it is not that he did it without undergoing penance sincerely.

 
  • 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 Orkut, the topic of Yudhishthir was by product of actually a thread discussion on Draupadi's vastraharan. There was an article again which was posted and said that 'Draupadi was never disrobed'. She was only insulted by dragging her by hair. This was very objectively analysed with verse reference by the author. And if that is correct, one can say that Krishna's glory is not reduced at all by that (we can say that Krishna was still there present in the form of angry Bheem stopping further damage by uttering oath) but it certainly saves Pandavas and elders in the assembly from many criticisms.

Here is the link of that article:

  • 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.

This is a very strong point I must say. It is worth reflecting over and thinking deep. Particularly the last sentence. He could have made Bheem the leader. Yes definitely right. So far as his decision to play dhyut is concerned, I guess he wanted to stick to morals of that time (when Dhyut was regarded as alternative to war to settle the land issues without blood bleeding) which can be regarded to be his weakness of interpreting dharma to be only rulebook dharma just like Bhishma rather than saving and protecting its essence in the world like Krishna. And he showed the glimpses to overcome that weakness of his in Ashwatthama incident.

  • 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.
I think in this incident, both brothers misbehaved with each other during the moments of loss of control over mind due to excitement of the situation and insult felt and both also realized their mistakes later and repented for it after Krishna handling the situation with alternative logical solutions.

  • 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

I agree that king should be ahead but then the king should also be most powerful and resourceful. He was not the king by virtue of being powerful but by virtue of being most knowledgeable and wise of all brothers and resourceful in the form of Bheem's and Arjun's powers. He was king being eldest of the 5 and brothers were supposed to protect him not necessarily because he was coward but because he was not as capable in war as the other two brothers were. If leading the army leads to the defeat of the same army, that would have been greater harm to Bheem and Arjun who were more ambitious than the actual king and hence king had to let them lead in the war for the purpose of victory. Once the war is waged, the aim should be victory with involvement in strategy formulation. No crime in that if protection of self is equal to protection of dharma's victory. And he also acknowledges his brothers to be his helping hands & legs & eyes. A kshatriya should be always ready for sacrifice first I agree. But he was always confident on abilities of his brothers. As per the serial, he showed readiness to go to fight Bakasur also in Ekchakra nagri. I will try to check out the facts over here from the text.

  • 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.
Very nice point once again. But I guess, previous point also covers the answer of this point.

Complex character indeed. Bheem therefore I voted also for the simplicity of understanding. No complexity involved in understanding his character and actions.




Edited by ShivangBuch - 16 January 2011 at 3:51am

ShivangBuch

Goldie

ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1045

Posted: 16 January 2011 at 4:04am | IP Logged
Just realized while answering your points that I missed out many contents of my Orkut posts in my previous post. lol. So I just continue that post of mine in inverted comma "" points replied to my friend at Orkut only after my friend acknowledging the reasoning of my posts. Sorry not finding enough time to edit the posts so better to post as they are.

"Thanks a lot brother.


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.Smile 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 Smile).


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."





Edited by ShivangBuch - 16 January 2011 at 10:36am

ShivangBuch

Goldie

ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1045

Posted: 16 January 2011 at 4:08am | IP Logged

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 Unhappy?

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."




Edited by ShivangBuch - 16 January 2011 at 9:11pm

Post Reply New Post

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Mythological Masti 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.