This discussion followed after one quote which I posted within School of Hinduism (Lesson-1)
Original post:
Hindus are advised against reading the Mahabharata inside their homes for the fear that ideas in that book such as brothers fighting over property will pollute family values. They prefer reading the Ramayana because in it brothers never fight over inheritance. The principle underlying this custom is called "sympathetic or imitative magic". According to this events in a household are influenced by the ideas expressed in sacred symbols, rituals and narratives. That is why during marriage and childbirth symbols associated with fruition and fertility and opulence are placed in all corners of the house.
# Friend1:
IMHO it is just superstition born from ignorance. Mahabharata teaches us some very important things, one of them being not to fight over inheritance. But most importantly, it shows how elders can fail : fathers, teachers, etc. It shows theoretical knowledge is useless : like drona, bhishma, etc. I personally feel that it is very relevant for today, given that it was written on the eve of kalyug.
Just have a strong attachment to it :)
# Me:
It shows even God has to take up means which were considered adharma, in order to win and establish dharma. drona was killed by yudhisthira's white lie, karna by trick against kshatriya's dharma, duryodhana killed by hitting below belt, not to mention insult to draupadi while her husbands lost her in gamble. Mahabharata was a dark time, no one, not even Krishna could remain to path of true dharma. If it teaches us to abandon fair play and kill bad people after becoming bad ourselves, it is debatable
In a symbolic tale, all pandavas except yudhisthir die before reaching swarga because they had flaws. yudhsthr himself had to spend a day in nark. krishna dies because of gandhari, curse who lost al her sons. not one character in mahabharata is flawless. this is why it has more negatives than positives for the common man. but in ramayana many are flawless, its lessons serve as our ideal.
more than anything else, ramayana tells what ideal brother, wife, husband, father, friend and bhakt could be. it is not the same in mahabharata. because of this ramayana is our ideal and worthy of reading by whole family... btw what do yoy think are lessons from mahabharata for family values?
also, if you can plz explain why you think bhisma's knowledge was theoritical? imo if there is one character who remained on the path of dharma from the beginning till end, it was bhishna. because of his fear kauravas didnt play as evil as they were... but first, lessons from mahabharata for family values...
# Friend1:
i have no dispute with what you say. Its like this. To bat well, I must know the right technique. But a good teacher must also teach the results and consequences of the bad technique. Mastery and perfection is achieved with equal knowledge of both good and bad. To know only the good is incomplete knowledge.
The lessons from mahabharata are very deep. For example, it is common to see in family disputes one of sons is uncomprimising. Parents keep saying "For us all are equal". Mahabharata illustrates the consequences of such action on part of the elders : its the end of the vansh or ancestral tradition. We see this all around. Mahabharata has a lot of bitter lessons, which I agree are not for everybody.
After all, Lord Krishna did appeal to Dhritrashtra, who was the king, and invested with all authority to stop the war. Thus he too was responsible. The relevance to today is self evident.
As for flaws, Mahabharata is guidance for mankind in the Kali Yuga. Not to say Ramayana should not emulated. One must have knowledge of all.
#Me:
Your point is good... ramayana and mahabhrata are from different times which have different values... even definitions of dharma are diff in the times. but when we want an ideal, it should be flawless, having perfection... people may call it unreal but ideal has to be that much higher... like we try for 100 but get 90 and we are still better than f we tried fotr 70 and ahieved 69... i agree that there are many lessons from mahabharata but as an ideal to aspire for, Ram Rajya is our ideal...
#Friend1:
No doubt. Ram Rajya is the ideal. But even in Ram Rajya, we shall still teach our kids about demons. To keep them away from it, will only make them fall into it. Free will is essential.
#Me:
right... just for reflection, in Ramayana i think the barbarians were termed rakshasas.... so easy to identify and eliminate... but in mahabharata times it was so difficult to discriminate between manava and rakshasa... like kansa was a rakshasa or human? duryodhana could very well be a rakshasa if present in ramayana times... even pandavas who gambled and put wife on bet, even before that they shared one wife, all were against dharma during ramayana times...
But we have very good examples of great family values from mahabharata... pandavas were ideal sons... draupadi was almost an ideal wife... pandavas were ideal sons towards mother... krishna balram ideal brothers... krishna arjuna ideal friends... bhishma ideal son for his father... bhishma's great vow an ideal... arjuna rejecting menaka for good reason... krishna's ideal role as a diplomat... on the other side there are so many nonideal characters showing us what not to be...
#Friend2:
Sorry to participate and disagree with everything, most flawed character in Ramayana was Ram himself, the one who outed his own wife, based on some stupid low life. If this is the family value ram raja gives no wonder, in India women empowerment needs to be fought for.
#Me:
Friend I have done some research and read much on this. The portion where Ram deserts Sita comes in uttar ramayana which is not authentic. Most authentic tale of Ram's life is as written by Valmiki who lived himself during Ram's time. And his Ramayana doesnt mention anything like this. I have read C. Rajgopalachari's Ramayana too which he had written after much research himself. He says that this part of Sita's exile seems to have come afterwards in folk tales due to women's fears and C. Rajgopalachari clearly says that Sita's exile is not there in oldest scriptures and has been added afterwards... So learned that we are we should not believe in any such stories... Also in the stories and fictions which mention this episode, they said Raja Ram left Queen Sita because Praja didnt want her. He never gave his wife away, so he never remarried and when in yagya he was needed to sit with his wife, he sat with Sita's golden idol... when Sita left this world he too enteres the river...
So for all practical purposes Sita's exile is an unauthentic story which entered our folklore and should not be taken seriously to make our opinion... Ram has always been the perfect husband... and i think we should correct the mistaken opinion of as many people as possible...
# Friend1:
Lord Ram was not only a husband : he was also a king, a father, etc. The part in uttar ramayana is the portrait of an ideal king. The first part is ideal student, then ideal son, then ideal husband, then ideal warrior, finally ideal king, and last ideal father. Further, he did not take another wife during the time, and pined for Sita only, and loved only her. The message is that an ideal ruler should be above reproach, and must listen to what his people want. If Sita lived in an ashrama, Lord Rama too lived in great sorrow during this time. Just bcoz he was living in a palace can be no comfort. He was not exactly gambling the nights away if thats what you think.
December 18, 2011 at 12:01am · UnlikeLike · 2
The idea is that of the bond that the two shared. Both grieved for the loss of their beloved. Neither was attached to wealth and power. It is an ideal that is naturally hard for us to grasp in this Kalyuga.
#Me:
You are very right... thanks a lot for putting it so well... Even in the later versions and additions where Ram is shown to leave Sita,i is reprentation of an ideal King... An ideal king has to make personal sacrifices if the people so want... queens were examples to whole public and when people started susecting her on her purity, to make good example, Ram is shown as leaving Sita... but he is never shown to be himself suspecting her or having mistrust... This dilemma of choosing between
December 18, 2011 at 12:11am · LikeUnlike · 1
This portion even though unauthentic shows the dilemma or conflict between different duties or dharmas...
Some more good examples from mahabharata... Karna is ideal daani, krishna ideal brother to draupadi, vidur ideal counsell, ghatotkach ideal son to bhim, abhimanyu great kshatriya, gandhari ideal wife... karna ideal friend to duryodhana... and so on... if we think we can find so many inspirations... but in totality Ram rajya is ideal for family values and culture...
#Friend3:
Concept of ramarajya doesn't fits well in today's society. Mahabharata is more appropriate. Even in Ramayan not everyone was ideal, kaikayi for instance.
he only perfectly ideal character in Mahabharat was karna. Others were ideal too but their ideals came out of teaching, belonging and convenience. Karna was the only character who had choice to change his alliance but he did not do so out of his friendship to his friend. He even donated his arms knowing fully well that this is deception. If it were Arjuna, I am sure Krishna might have helped him to dodge the situation.
Bhishma, Drona, Gandhari, Dhritrashtra all suffered due to their lack of conscience. I somewhere read about theortrical knowledge among comments. Thats explanable. Doesn't matters who is right or wrong, no one has got authority or right to insult a woman neither in public nor in private. What happened with Draupadi, was not the fault of her husband or duryodhan. All the elders who were present there were even more responsible for that. It was wrong on Drona's part, if he cannot instill good manners in his pupils he shoud have stopped them with all his authority.
It was wrong on Bhisma's part, he was the eldest and most experienced member of the family and he should have used his powers. Even after that they had a choice, both Bhishma and Drona should have abstained themselves from the war. Being a teacher (Drona)and being eldest of the family(Bhishma) they were supposed to be neutrals.
#Me:
For Karna, as i said he was ideal daani and ideal friend to duryodhana... or but his friendship was more loyalty than friendship. a good friend is a good adviser... but alas he always advised duryodhana to start war and was part of adventures to kill pandavas by trick. so he is never an ideal friend anyone can aspire for.. on the other hand he is ideal when it comes to loyalty. next he remains hateful and full of vengeance all through.. he was not the only lost royal in the family...
Vidura was exactly his case a generation back...not owned up legally... but he remained peaceful and balanced... karna was never balanced, though full of kshatriya valore but unthoughtful and quick and always ready for war... popular modern literature and fiction tries to make him a hero as people love underdogs but we need to read original classics to understand characters properly and fully...
For draupadi's incident and bhishma... as we know dhritirashtra returned all the kingdom kauravas won in gamble just after that event... it happened due to bhishma's pressure.. without bhishma's presence as keeper of dharma duryodhana wud have killed pandavas long time back. he and elders did all they cud, but there are limits. on draupdi if her husbands were wise enough to put her for gamble it was no business of others to interfere.. in that time also some women were keeps and if pandavas wanted
If pandavas were ok with letting their wife be slave of duryodhana, who were others to object? of course Krishna came to object and he saved draupadi... in the epic of mahabharata it was krishna who played role of keeper of dharma, if others cud do it he never had to take Avatar!
Bhishma and Drona could not be neutral to the war until they followed dharma... they were bound to protect the throne and pandvas were attacking it... dhritirashtra was the king and duryodhana was yuvaraj, they had to side with the throne... if they sided with pandavas or didnt support kauravas they wud not be kshatriyas and lose their honor...but they had to side with evil. in mahabharata it is shown as conflict between dharmas and ordinary morality vs higher morality...
You are right that kaikai was not ideal. people know the ideal characters in ramayana and they are flawless... like Ram, Sita, Bharat, Lakshman, Hanuman, Angad,... The character of Kaikai is there in Ramayana to test the character of Ram... if there was no kaikai or manthara Ram wuld not have achieved that much height and fulfilled purpose of his avatar... Vishnu had taken birth as Ram to eliminate rakshasas including ravana and all that happened was part of maya.in m.b. no 1 is flawless
#Friend1:
On the question of bhishma and drona, i would go with shweta. they were the elders, and if they had taken a stand the war would never have happened. Even then were it to happen, at least the elders would have done their duty. But in Mahabharata, none of the elders follow their duty
If we accept the dictum of "no action is also action", the elders were the most responsible for the war.
The actions of elders were shameful regarding draupadi. We must remember that any private deal if illegal or immoral can be nullified by the state. That is the duty of the king. Yet such a shameful act happened in the royal court.
Actually, these books are meant to illustrate certain things to us. The fact that Ved Vyas put Drona and Bhishma in the losing faction, opposing the Lord, should leave no doubts as to the intended meaning
#Me:
Duryodhana had gone to Draupadi's swayamvar and Drupadi had insulted him calling him Andhe ka Beta. So Duryodhan wanted to take revenge on her and hence the insult. Next if we start judging, elders of Gangeya who became Bhishma should have fought and protested against him for his "illegal and immoral" act of kidnapping 3 daughters of Kashiraj? I fear we should not judge that time and kings' ways from the ethics of our times. In a way, each character of MB paid price for his or her karma.
That court of Hastinapur where Draupadi was insulted represented all that was wrong with that time. When the bad guys are at their evil best, good guys lose their mind, protectors and elders confuse dharma and become mere spectators, when king is blind, and humanity in draupadi's form is insulted, Bhagwan has to come on earth to cleanse all the rot... only He can do it and he show us what is dharma and what is evil...
No comments:
Post a Comment