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.
Edited by ShivangBuch - 17 January 2011 at 2:27am