Mythological Masti

India-Forums

   
Mythological Masti
Mythological Masti

Ques on MahaBhrarta. Peep in/ DT Nt pg 25

Y12345 IF-Rockerz
Y12345
Y12345

Joined: 21 August 2014
Posts: 7250

Posted: 26 February 2018 at 12:20am | IP Logged
Controversial topic: 
If Krishna was there himself, why didnt he fight the war himself or prevent the monopoly of good or bad instead of letting so many innocents die?
He did fought when his parents were imprisoned. I feel he manipulated, a lot of situations, and let innocents die when he had the power to save them. 

NOTE: We started dissecting version aspects as well, and build up our discussions from that question,to navigate through other questions. Feel free to join if you are interested in MB


Feel free to disagree however kindly be polite while debating. Thanks.


Disclaimer: This thread is purely for discussions, all the points discussed in this thread are solely the opinions of the participants. This thread is not intended to hurt the feelings of anyone, and the accuracy vary, and interpretations are based on how someone view the events, you may or not believe what has been said.


Edited by Y12345 - 21 May 2018 at 12:17am

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

PandavPranayinishruthiravi

PandavPranayini Senior Member
PandavPranayini
PandavPranayini

Joined: 22 May 2017
Posts: 318

Posted: 26 February 2018 at 12:59am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Y12345

Controversial topic: 
If Krishna was there himself, why didnt he fight the war himself or prevent the monopoly of good or bad instead of letting so many innocents die?
He did fought when his parents were imprisoned. I feel he manipulated, a lot of situations, and let innocents die when he had the power to save them. 


Feel free to disagree however kindly be polite while debating. Thanks

Cause it was for the greater good, that is loka kalyana. It was the end of Dwapara yuga, and the people were greatly immersed in adharma. It was for a fresh start to the most worst yuga, which gradually became the world which is now. 

The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

ArjunmeshapaarthaKetakeeY12345RamKiSeeta

paartha Senior Member
paartha
paartha

Joined: 12 September 2017
Posts: 346

Posted: 26 February 2018 at 1:10am | IP Logged
It is always good to have healthy debates and discussions and clarify our doubts. Of course, all this should be done in the sphere of civility.

Since, I believe Lord Krishna to be almighty, so I will not be using terms like manipulation. I simply believe myself to be incapable of understanding his ways, so I cannot question his intentions or integrity. 

First, we have to be clear what is our base of argument here, are we judging Mahabharat merely to be a war fought over land by group of cousins and devoid of any divine characters/ and any sort of divinity OR if we believe Mahabharat to be of divine characters and of divinity. If we believe it is the former, then there is absolutely no way to understand many aspects of the Mahabharat, because almost all critical aspects relate to something which is divine or superhuman, for example: many births such as that of Drona, Draupadi, Dhristadyumna, Pandavas, Kauravas and so on cannot be explained logically and everything in it is open for question and debate. If we believe it is the latter, then actions performed by the Lord are always necessary and we human beings with limited intellect will not be able to decipher the ways of the Lord.

I too have many unanswered questions regarding several aspects of the Mahabharat, and I try to be open to all characters with regards to debate and try to understand various viewpoints, as I believe all characters to have certain flaws and also certain merits and will be able to teach us and inspire us in various ways. But, when it comes to the actions of Lord Krishna, somehow feel that his actions were necessary. May be the 'Cycle of Karma' has to go on and even the Lord has to follow it and sometimes adhering to that may result in actions which in our eyes is not proper. 

For me, a person who has taught philosophy such as Bhagwad Gita, cannot be a manipulator or schemer or a selfish person. The teachings of the Gita such as, doing your work without expecting any fruit of such action, perfection of character and so on, they are so revolutionary that anyone teaching such philosophy is worthy of veneration. 

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

KetakeeY12345ltelidevaraRamKiSeeta

Y12345 IF-Rockerz
Y12345
Y12345

Joined: 21 August 2014
Posts: 7250

Posted: 26 February 2018 at 2:23am | IP Logged
Originally posted by KalyaniPanchali

Originally posted by Y12345

Controversial topic: 
If Krishna was there himself, why didnt he fight the war himself or prevent the monopoly of good or bad instead of letting so many innocents die?
He did fought when his parents were imprisoned. I feel he manipulated, a lot of situations, and let innocents die when he had the power to save them. 


Feel free to disagree however kindly be polite while debating. Thanks

Cause it was for the greater good, that is loka kalyana. It was the end of Dwapara yuga, and the people were greatly immersed in adharma. It was for a fresh start to the most worst yuga, which gradually became the world which is now. 

Yeah it totally agree but my question, why didnt he fight it himself?
Like he killed Kamsa himself right?


Edited by Y12345 - 26 February 2018 at 2:23am

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

PandavPranayini

PandavPranayini Senior Member
PandavPranayini
PandavPranayini

Joined: 22 May 2017
Posts: 318

Posted: 26 February 2018 at 3:03am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Y12345

Originally posted by KalyaniPanchali

Originally posted by Y12345

Controversial topic: 
If Krishna was there himself, why didnt he fight the war himself or prevent the monopoly of good or bad instead of letting so many innocents die?
He did fought when his parents were imprisoned. I feel he manipulated, a lot of situations, and let innocents die when he had the power to save them. 


Feel free to disagree however kindly be polite while debating. Thanks

Cause it was for the greater good, that is loka kalyana. It was the end of Dwapara yuga, and the people were greatly immersed in adharma. It was for a fresh start to the most worst yuga, which gradually became the world which is now. 

Yeah it totally agree but my question, why didnt he fight it himself?
Like he killed Kamsa himself right?

He is Narayana, the supreme God himself. When it came to Kamsa, it was for his parents, so he had to fight with him. But when it came to Mahabharata, the base of the war is Kuruvansh. He can't intervene in the struggle because he possessed strength and valour beyond estimation and the war is fought by mere humans and he is not related to the Kuruvansh directly. Thus he only chose to guide his devotees/ cousins (Pandavas) in the battle. In fact it's he, who fought. Pandavas are his just his medium. Smile

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

paarthaY12345RamKiSeeta

Y12345 IF-Rockerz
Y12345
Y12345

Joined: 21 August 2014
Posts: 7250

Posted: 26 February 2018 at 6:15am | IP Logged
Originally posted by KalyaniPanchali

Originally posted by Y12345

Originally posted by KalyaniPanchali

Originally posted by Y12345

Controversial topic: 
If Krishna was there himself, why didnt he fight the war himself or prevent the monopoly of good or bad instead of letting so many innocents die?
He did fought when his parents were imprisoned. I feel he manipulated, a lot of situations, and let innocents die when he had the power to save them. 


Feel free to disagree however kindly be polite while debating. Thanks

Cause it was for the greater good, that is loka kalyana. It was the end of Dwapara yuga, and the people were greatly immersed in adharma. It was for a fresh start to the most worst yuga, which gradually became the world which is now. 

Yeah it totally agree but my question, why didnt he fight it himself?
Like he killed Kamsa himself right?

He is Narayana, the supreme God himself. When it came to Kamsa, it was for his parents, so he had to fight with him. But when it came to Mahabharata, the base of the war is Kuruvansh. He can't intervene in the struggle because he possessed strength and valour beyond estimation and the war is fought by mere humans and he is not related to the Kuruvansh directly. Thus he only chose to guide his devotees/ cousins (Pandavas) in the battle. In fact it's he, who fought. Pandavas are his just his medium. Smile

Hey. Just a few points I disagree. Otherwise, I appreciate your ans.

@underline: Bit tricky. Mere humans? The 5 pandavs and Karna were demi-god right? Even Bhima was demi gods( They had god- parents)
I don't understand your logic though. You said that he is the Supreme God first, then you said he had to intervene because of his parents. You mean mortal parents?


Love your last line. That's what I wanted to say, and I really apologize to Paartna as well for using the word manipulation. But he/she said, he is god, difficult to understand what he wanted. 
That's what I wanted to say, what were the need to use them as medium? People died. Warriors like Abhimayu died, which Krishna could have saved. Innocent were killed.
He had the power to stop war, just like he had the power to make drapuadi sari longer. So he had the power, to stop adharma too,
As you said, he guided his cousins, so he could have guided the Karavs too. He could influence/insppire/enlighten the way to many people. Like some texts say he appeared before bhima and made him realize his divine powers before he was doomed to the bed of arrows. 
I somewhere feel he could but he didnt. 
He also knew who would die in the war too, he knew all the way. Gandhari cursed him too regarding this. 
It's hard to see why he did what he did. Were other people his devotee too? At that time, everyone believed in god, so he could have done something, yet choose to make people shed blood.

In this process of Kuruvansh, or whatever his motive for the war so, he in a way 'forced'( in a mild way) them to fight. Draupadi & Arjun were reluctant, but they accepted war at Krishna's request.In this process, he indirectly made Pandavs commit treachery in a dsguised way, just to wipe off the bad from the generation. 
Instead of intervening, he left them fight till death.



Edited by Y12345 - 26 February 2018 at 6:16am
PandavPranayini Senior Member
PandavPranayini
PandavPranayini

Joined: 22 May 2017
Posts: 318

Posted: 26 February 2018 at 8:17am | IP Logged
They had demigods as their parents, otherwise they were humans only. Though I believe the Pandavas to be Lord Shiva's anshs, still they were humans. Ansh means atom. So, they were not demi-gods. They had divine qualities, not powers. Smile
Yes, his mortal parents. Sorry for the confusion. Tongue
Actually they were the parents of demigods (Kashyapa-Aditi) who got the boon to beget Vishnu as their son. They were Dasharatha-Kausalya in their previous birth. 

Because Pandavas exist. LOL
See, the foremost reason for the birth of Pandavas and Draupadi was to assist Krishna in his dharmasthapana. They were born for him and only him. They were ansh/atoms of Panchanan Shiva and Goddess Parvati (Reference: Skanda Purana), but they were humans, who are flawed. And Draupadi did not oppose the war. She, Sahadeva and Krishna always wanted a war. He convinced Bhima, Dharmaraja and at last, Arjuna (who needed the Gita to understand). When we have a to eliminate the larger number of adharma, a bit of dharma dies to. That is why Innocents (as in soldiers) were killed. Compared to them, the adharma was 100 times more and the loka kalyana was necessary. Abhimanyu, Ghatotkacha and the other sons of Pandavas were killed because, they did not call Krishna for help like Draupadi did. God is not against destiny. He only comes when we wholeheartedly surrender to him, like in the case of Draupadi. Abhimanyu and the others, willingly accepted their death for the sake of greater good. They sacrificed their lives in the dharma yagya. 

Why will he guide Kauravas when they did not want to? Pandavas accepted their faults and surrendered at the feet of the Lord. So he guided them. Kauravas did not. Even though, he gave them a chance. But they chose his army, not him. But the Pandavas chose him. That is why he guided the Pandavas. He had the power to stop the adharma, but not dharma. Abhimanyu and the others were performing their dharma and their sacrifices will make the dharma stronger and stronger. Their deaths were what made the power of dharma increase. The righteous reign of King Yudhisthira, where people lived blissfully had the past of selfless sacrifices. That made it more powerful, if not. 
Yes, he made people shed blood. Such destruction was necessary. If a woman, who is the empress of the entire Bharatavarsha, can be abused and humiliated in front of a sabha full of elders like Bhishma, Drona, Dhritarashtra and Kripa, how do you think the common society would have manifested in to? If dharma itself made such people to strip off her honour and elders to sit mum, how much do you think "dharma' would have been butchered? No, it was not Draupadi's case alone. Her being the samragyi, was highlighted but many women suffered a fate as such. In fact adharma was rampant even in the "innocent" society. There were rarely the people who were completely innocent because it was near the end of Dwapara yuga. That is why he made people shed blood, but whenever a person's blood flowed on the battle field, his heart itself bled. Broken Heart

Gandhari's curse is not a just one. Yes, Krishna didn't stop the war but her sons committed crimes! And they deserved that fate. She was the one who had to bring up her children in a right way, and Dhritarashtra. But both were blind to their children's misdeeds. That's why everything happened

To establish Dharma and to save Dharma, using treachery is not wrong. That is what he teaches us. Killing Bhishma by bringing in Shikhandi, was that treachery? Bhishma abducted Amba from her swayamwara, and you know the tragic consequences. Her life was destroyed. Thus, his sin returned to him. It was not a treachery. Killing Drona with a lie, yes it was wrong. But what about Drona who was involved in killing of a young boy with unethical means? Who, despite being a brahmin, had an abundant amount of ego? Vengeful nature? His death was necessary. But he was a great warrior. But he had to be killed. Thus, that wasn't wrong. Like that, every treachery they used turned about to be right because it was for Dharma, not just eliminating the bad. But establishing good in the society. He is the God, thus his actions are hard to understand yes, but nothing is impossible with true devotion. 

Om Namo Narayanayah! 

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

Y12345RamKiSeeta

Y12345 IF-Rockerz
Y12345
Y12345

Joined: 21 August 2014
Posts: 7250

Posted: 27 February 2018 at 11:04pm | IP Logged
KalyaniPanchali
Thanks for explaining. So you said that it was destiny and pre-written. Every action leads to a reaction. So Krishna knew what would happened. If he could prevent the actions leading to war, he could have prevented war.
Totally agree with you though that Pandavs and Drapuadi were born for him only. So they become his medium used for the Dharma war.
About last paragraph, hard to digest that, that one can go through a adharma route just for dharma. I mean if we apply to today's society, it's not tolerated, just because you have good intentions, doesn't give you the right to get the work done by crook or hook.
The thing that bothers me, is that Krishna himself didn't use treachery, he made them used treachery. He didnt do anything wrong himself directly but he made others commit adharma. 

PS: I feel that not just Guru Drona, but almost all of them had a big ego. Arjuna, Bheem, Duryodhana, Shakuni,


If we start to dissect, there is a lot of room for interpretation because MB is complex. I completely agree that Draupadi being the queen faced such abuse, now imagine common women. Though it is important to note that if common women would go through this, no war would have been fought for them. The war was (partly) fought for Draupaudi's honor, who was of higher status, which also led to thousands of women losing their hubby, because Drapudi was the queen and the war was necessary,
See, Kunti abused Drapaudi too, Pandavs too. Pandavs always ask permission from Kunti, and somewhere I feel she knew they were going to Draupadi Swayamb.. and when she said " divide what you have" cracked me. But they all got their share of pain, Pandavs stayed quiet all their sons died too.

Guys, you were right. Krishna is god so it is impossible to understand him. Though, the heart of MB, lies in understanding him. You asked me about the common world, and this is difficult to answer,. MB was fought years ago partly because, they tried to disrobe a woman, however years after, woman are still getting raped, and rape is justified and women are blamed. It;s sad that people didnt learn a bit from MB. Evil is prevailing Disapprove

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
MY QUES

Author: trrangarajan15   Replies: 0   Views: 420

trrangarajan15 0 420 30 December 2010 at 5:48am by trrangarajan15

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Check these Celebrity also

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.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index