Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
velu

Duryodhana seems to be the most righteous person among all the Mahabharata characters !!!

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

At the end of the war when Pandavas and Krishna Yudhisthira makes him an offer that he may pick any of the Pandava brothers to fight against one-to-one with a weapon of his choice, and that if he defeats that Pandava, Duryodhana shall be deemed the victor of the war. Duryodhana picks his arch enemy Bhima over the other Pandava brothers whom he could have effortlessly overwhelmed with his skill at fighting with the mace, to ensure a fair fight he picks up Bheema.

main-qimg-8040070def49d7ff43ce77ed36c8b5

 

 

:thinking:

Edited by velu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pollack said:

He was brave but certainly not righteous. No character in Mahabharat is righteous except of course Krishna.

Did you mean Karna (or Karan for the Northies here), and not Krishna?  Mahabharat is the perfect story of "Nice guys finish last."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stradlater said:

Erm he also ordered His younger bigdail brother Dushasan to strip Draupadi forcefully in front of the entire hall and make her sit on his lap.

 

Righteousness my arse.

The five spineless husbands of draupadi were no better.

Bloody namard bhaiya bet the collective wife and the other 4 spineless just sat there.

 

 

The only righteous one was Karn.

He was too good to be involved with all these bad seeds. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beetle said:

The five spineless husbands of draupadi were no better.

Bloody namard bhaiya bet the collective wife and the other 4 spineless just sat there.

 

 

The only righteous one was Karn.

He was too good to be involved with all these bad seeds. 

 

 

Karna called Draupadi vaishya , Just read original. Text He was one of main instigator of Cheerharan , it is neo 21st century version which made him look good O/W there is nothing good in his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beetle said:

The five spineless husbands of draupadi were no better.

Bloody namard bhaiya bet the collective wife and the other 4 spineless just sat there.

 

 

The only righteous one was Karn.

He was too good to be involved with all these bad seeds. 

 

 

Are you kidding me? Karna righteous one? 

Wont blame you  though.Romanticism of karna's righteousness is too much on tv.

But a feminist like you should be the last person to admire Karna. If you want to praise someone you should praise Vikarna. He was sulking when Draupadi was insulted while all others including the most respected Bhisma watched shamelessly doing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Pollack said:

Are you kidding me? Karna righteous one? 

Wont blame you  though.Romanticism of karna's righteousness is too much on tv.

But a feminist like you should be the last person to admire Karna. If you want to praise someone you should praise Vikarna. He was sulking when Draupadi was insulted while all others including the most respected Bhisma watched shamelessly doing nothing.

I don't watch tv.

I have not heard such bad things about karn....if true, then i guess he was bad seed too.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Pollack said:

Are you kidding me? Karna righteous one? 

Wont blame you  though.Romanticism of karna's righteousness is too much on tv.

But a feminist like you should be the last person to admire Karna. If you want to praise someone you should praise Vikarna. He was sulking when Draupadi was insulted while all others including the most respected Bhisma watched shamelessly doing nothing.

 

how about betting their wife ? :p: 

pandvas treated their wife /wives as object

 

duryodhana took only one wife and trusted her even when her wardrobe was pulled by karna 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, velu said:

 

how about betting their wife ? :p: 

pandvas treated their wife /wives as object

 

duryodhana took only one wife and trusted her even when her wardrobe was pulled by karna 

According to texts Yudhisthira committed only one sin in Life when he lied about Ashwathama death  and he was punished for that as he has to see image of hell O/W his life was perfect .So I guess according to god's law he did nothing wrong or whatever wrong he committed he just paid for that in life as vanvaas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

According to texts Yudhisthira committed only one sin in Life when he lied about Ashwathama death  and he was punished for that as he has to see image of hell O/W his life was perfect .So I guess according to god's law he did nothing wrong or whatever wrong he committed he just paid for that in life as vanvaas

 

for me only thing duryodan did is insulting draupadi out of revenge :(

anywya yudistra was knowing the all the goalmal things krisha was doing to win the war and was part of it silently  :p:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, velu said:

 

how about betting their wife ? :p: 

pandvas treated their wife /wives as object

 

duryodhana took only one wife and trusted her even when her wardrobe was pulled by karna 

Which part of this post did you not understand:

No character in Mahabharat is righteous except of course Krishna.

Where did I say Pandavas were righteous. They paid for their wrong doings too. Wife getting insulted, vanvas, killing their own brothers including karna etc.. Draupadi was mad at Pandavas too for treating her like an object but forgive them. Even karna couldnt stop admiring her for forgiving even when her husband's brought her great misery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

According to texts Yudhisthira committed only one sin in Life when he lied about Ashwathama death  and he was punished for that as he has to see image of hell O/W his life was perfect .So I guess according to god's law he did nothing wrong or whatever wrong he committed he just paid for that in life as vanvaas

Even in those days...it was not acceptable to bet their wife .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, velu said:

he did all possible cheating :((

 

LOL How about the many treacherous plans hatched by DUryodhan and Shakuni before. Were they fair? Besides, the main reason for war were :

1) For Karavas: To acquire kingdom

2)Pandavas: To take revenge

3)Krishna : Start of a new beginning. New Age.

If Krishna wanted he could have avoided all the cheating by being a warrior fighting from pandavas side. He chose to be sarathi instead. 

Besides Yudhishthir lost while gambling due to cheating which resulted in great insult and eventual war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Pollack said:

Which part of this post did you not understand:

No character in Mahabharat is righteous except of course Krishna.

Where did I say Pandavas were righteous. They paid for their wrong doings too. Wife getting insulted, vanvas, killing their own brothers including karna etc.. Draupadi was mad at Pandavas too for treating her like an object but forgive them. Even karna couldnt stop admiring her for forgiving even when her husband's brought her great misery.

 

point is karna and duryodana treated women better than pandavas ..

anyway no issues if you agree both groups are at fault here ..

 

but wont agree krishna is righteous 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, velu said:

 

point is karna and duryodana treated women better than pandavas ..

anyway no issues if you agree both groups are at fault here ..

 

but wont agree krishna is righteous 

I dont want to discuss on Krishna. I am okay if you want to believe something but as per forum policy we should not bring in the topic that is going to hurt someone's sentiments. By the way, I can definitely discuss this 1 on 1 but not on an open forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gandhari should also feature quite high in the list of the righteous ones. She keeps a blindfold to life at an equal level of disability as her husband. And this she does out of her free will. When Duryodhan asks for blessings before the war, her reply is to the tune of " may the righteous side win".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Durodhan’s mother Gandhari used some special powers to make Duryodhan’s body capable of taking blows. Only his thighs were vulnerable which Bhim exploited 

 

/thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, zen said:

Durodhan’s mother Gandhari used some special powers to make Duryodhan’s body capable of taking blows. Only his thighs were vulnerable which Bhim exploited 

 

/thread

 

actually his privates :blush: 

 

duryodan was almost winning , stats shows he was far more skillful in macefight than bhima :biggrin:

duroyodan might have picked lesser skillful pandava brothers , but he went for bhima 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, velu said:

 

for me only thing duryodan did is insulting draupadi out of revenge :(

anywya yudistra was knowing the all the goalmal things krisha was doing to win the war and was part of it silently  :p:

 

Erm Lakshagriha anyone? 

Duryodhan was a douchebag. But to be honest no character in Mahabharata is immune to criticism except maybe Vidur.

 

Krishna was bap of all of them when it came to Bakchodi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mariyam said:

Gandhari should also feature quite high in the list of the righteous ones. She keeps a blindfold to life at an equal level of disability as her husband. And this she does out of her free will. When Duryodhan asks for blessings before the war, her reply is to the tune of " may the righteous side win".

 

If your husband is disable then it does not mean you disabe yourself, also she knew that Shakuni was evil yet she did nothing to keep him away from his sons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard similar interpretation about Ramayan as well. Most would say Ram vs Ravan is good vs evil, some suggest that Ravan wanted to die at the hands of Ram and hence he went about his business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor guy got maligned and made into a villain after losing the war.Wont be surprised if draupadi was scheming all these destructions,played all the men like a fiddle .Her birth was for the sole purpose of seeking revenge.Her father was humiliated and he prayed to god to give him a son(who was the general ) and a daughter to seek revenge.

Edited by MultiB48

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pollack said:

He was brave but certainly not righteous. No character in Mahabharat is righteous except of course Krishna.

So righteous that he had to resort to treachery to steal Karna's jewels. That Karna was wise enough to see through Krishna's deception does not change the fact that Krishna flat out lied in his personification of a brahmin beggar asking alms. 


Nobody is righteous in Mahabharata except maybe Bhisma - and IMO the whole point of the book is the idea that good and evil are relative, with nobody ever being completely 100% good or evil, Krishna included. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, beetle said:

I don't watch tv.

I have not heard such bad things about karn....if true, then i guess he was bad seed too.

 

 

 

we see too much in to black and white while everyone does some gray stuff.  What they do are good or bad from others perspective, but may not be good or bad from their own perspectives.   no one is saint, even so called saints are not saints.

Edited by rkt.india

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

So righteous that he had to resort to treachery to steal Karna's jewels. That Karna was wise enough to see through Krishna's deception does not change the fact that Krishna flat out lied in his personification of a brahmin beggar asking alms. 


Nobody is righteous in Mahabharata except maybe Bhisma - and IMO the whole point of the book is the idea that good and evil are relative, with nobody ever being completely 100% good or evil, Krishna included. 

True. it is the true reflection of this world where everyone is vulnerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

So righteous that he had to resort to treachery to steal Karna's jewels. That Karna was wise enough to see through ****'s deception does not change the fact that **** flat out lied in his personification of a brahmin beggar asking alms. 


Nobody is righteous in Mahabharata except maybe Bhisma - and IMO the whole point of the book is the idea that good and evil are relative, with nobody ever being completely 100% good or evil, ****** included. 

I request you to not make such comments. Please remove the word from your text. This is not a place where we discuss any GOD whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or hate it. I can defend, I can put lot of stuff in defense but then again, i wont stoop to that level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dial_100 said:

I request you to not make such comments. Please remove the word from your text. This is not a place where we discuss any GOD whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or hate it. I can defend, I can put lot of stuff in defense but then again, i wont stoop to that level. 

Krishna, is an avatar. Not a God. An avatar is not infallible, even by technical standard of Hinduism. 
I come from a brahmin family- before i stopped believing in the nonsense that is religion, the whole ' what is the difference between krishna, vishnu and rama' are the type of keen discussion any brahmin family (especially with the upanayan-guru) has.

 

And whether you like it or not, the story tells itself- i did not invent anything, nor twist anything. Every version of Mahabharata has Krishna decieving Karna as a brahmin alms-seeker when Karna is performing the Surya pranaam. 

Pretending to be something you are not is deception. If i dress like a policeman and act like one, i am being deceptive. Similary, Krishna was being deceptive when he pretended to be a brahmin alms-seeker. An act does not become less/more moral because a God or prophet did it versus a normal person. An act stands on itself and the Mahabharata is not subject to your interpretation nor mine- it says what it says. And it clearly shows even Krishna is not beyond treachery. 

 

Which, ironically, makes it a far more 'divine' in my eyes than the mickey-mouse tales of other religions, as it actually portrays reality as being grey. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

So righteous that he had to resort to treachery to steal Karna's jewels. That Karna was wise enough to see through Krishna's deception does not change the fact that Krishna flat out lied in his personification of a brahmin beggar asking alms. 


Nobody is righteous in Mahabharata except maybe Bhisma - and IMO the whole point of the book is the idea that good and evil are relative, with nobody ever being completely 100% good or evil, Krishna included. 

It was indra not Krishna who stole kavach and kundals or karna

 

Bhishma was not right.He loved his father more than nation , abducted Amba and other princesses , even some version says that he indirectly threatened Gandhar .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

we see too much in to black and white while everyone does some gray stuff.  What they do are good or bad from others perspective, but may not be good or bad from their own perspectives.   no one is saint, even so called saints are not saints.

True.

What we see and what we make of things is also from our perspective....hence the varying opinions .

Moreover , people can be good in one role and pathetic in others.

That judgement also varies depending upon the thinking of the people judging and depending on what they consider important .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Krishna, is an avatar. Not a God. An avatar is not infallible, even by technical standard of Hinduism. 
I come from a brahmin family- before i stopped believing in the nonsense that is religion, the whole ' what is the difference between krishna, vishnu and rama' are the type of keen discussion any brahmin family (especially with the upanayan-guru) has.

 

And whether you like it or not, the story tells itself- i did not invent anything, nor twist anything. Every version of Mahabharata has Krishna decieving Karna as a brahmin alms-seeker when Karna is performing the Surya pranaam. 

Pretending to be something you are not is deception. If i dress like a policeman and act like one, i am being deceptive. Similary, Krishna was being deceptive when he pretended to be a brahmin alms-seeker. An act does not become less/more moral because a God or prophet did it versus a normal person. An act stands on itself and the Mahabharata is not subject to your interpretation nor mine- it says what it says. And it clearly shows even Krishna is not beyond treachery. 

 

Which, ironically, makes it a far more 'divine' in my eyes than the mickey-mouse tales of other religions, as it actually portrays reality as being grey. 

 

 

Jitna pata ho utna bolna chahiye.

 

Krishna didnot steal the jewels. Indra asked them as alms from Karna. Karna was free to refuse but he didnot as he had vowed to never refuse alms. Indra did this to protect his "Manas Putra" Arjun. Now how did Karna get the Kavach and Kundala, the only armour in the Dev-Shastragaar? Surya his father gave it to Karna at his birth. So Devtas were involved on both sides.

 

Secondly for you religion may be nonsense but its not so for billions. No need to call it nonsense or mickey mouse tales. Learn to tolerate other's belief as others tolerate yours.

 

No one here is interested in knowing about your family so stop boasting about it.

 

Mahabharata is open to interpretations as its not written in vernacular hindi or english but in sanskrit. The core 24000 verses are almost 2500 years old. So the sanskrit text is indeed open to interpretations.Also hindu religious texts have inner meanings and open to interpretations.

 

If you are a victim of treachery and adharma, its correct to resort to treachery to destroy that adharma and establish dharma.

 

Avatar is a embodiment of the God himself and is as infallible as god.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Mahabharata no character was righteous...Someone said Gandhari..She represents the very woman who was blind to whatever her husband or son does...basically running away from the responsbilities..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

too many intellectuals around overanalysing everything and forcing their perversion of religion on everyone...

Krishna has to be the greatest character in mahabharat...no question about it... 

Rest everyone are just normal ppl with good+bad characteristics... the story itself is said in a way that teaches by showing examples of mistakes of everyone...that includes pandavs, kauravas, the great bhishma, etc

 

And cant stand the over glorification of Karna by modern day casteist, feminists, pseudo liberals... He was a dickhead like lot of others...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

If you are a victim of treachery and adharma, its correct to resort to treachery to destroy that adharma and establish dharma.

 

There is something similar in Islam as well.  If you stoop to those levels then what is the difference between you and them and in that case, the dharma is good as an adharma as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

Jitna pata ho utna bolna chahiye.

 

Krishna didnot steal the jewels. Indra asked them as alms from Karna. Karna was free to refuse but he didnot as he had vowed to never refuse alms. Indra did this to protect his "Manas Putra" Arjun. Now how did Karna get the Kavach and Kundala, the only armour in the Dev-Shastragaar? Surya his father gave it to Karna at his birth. So Devtas were involved on both sides.

Sorry my bad. 

However, Krishna is not without his deception/deceit. It was him that 'hid the sun' and falsely declared the day over, to kill whatsisname that Arjuna had vowed to kill within the day or commit suicide. 

If Surya gave Karna the kavach-kundala, its perfectly moral and just: a father has the moral right to give his children what is his. 
However, this doesn't excuse Indra's deception or Krishna's deception during Kurukshetra.

9 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

Secondly for you religion may be nonsense but its not so for billions. No need to call it nonsense or mickey mouse tales. Learn to tolerate other's belief as others tolerate yours.

I tolerate them, which is why i am not for banning religion. Learn that freedom of speech and ideas means that as long as no living entity is being libelled against, you have the right to say whatever you want. I shall defend YOUR right to chant 'ram nam satya hai' or 'Allah-hu-akbar' in public. Because its your right. Sad to see that right wingers do not extend the same right to atheists, who are also equally in the right to say 'God is BS'.

 

9 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

No one here is interested in knowing about your family so stop boasting about it.

 

Mahabharata is open to interpretations as its not written in vernacular hindi or english but in sanskrit. The core 24000 verses are almost 2500 years old. So the sanskrit text is indeed open to interpretations.Also hindu religious texts have inner meanings and open to interpretations.

 

If you are a victim of treachery and adharma, its correct to resort to treachery to destroy that adharma and establish dharma.

False. Two wrongs don't make a right. A wrong action, is still a wrong action whether its committed against a treacherous person or not. Just because a person is a criminal, does not give you the right to abuse their personal freedoms. 

9 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

Avatar is a embodiment of the God himself and is as infallible as god.

Show me where it says that....in any scripture. I will wait.

The stories THEMSELVES show that Avatars are not infallible. Rama regretted sending Sita into banishment. If Avatars are infallible, then it means each and every action of the avatar is infallible, ergo, Rama would not have committed an action he regrets. That is direct contradiction of the term 'infallible' and the tales themselves demonstrate that Avatars are not infallible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, speedheat said:

there was no righteous person in Mahabharata except lord Krishna, there were some straight forward in your face type persons like shishupal and barbarik but no righteous and I personally think that bhishma was hypocrite :laugh:

Even Krishna was not righteous. He flat out lied about the sun setting, hid the sun and then releazed it to bail out his chamcha Arjun from a stupid vow he took to commit suicide.

Nobody is 100% righteous in the Mahabharata and that is what makes the tale so beautiful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Even Krishna was not righteous. He flat out lied about the sun setting, hid the sun and then releazed it to bail out his chamcha Arjun from a stupid vow he took to commit suicide.

Nobody is 100% righteous in the Mahabharata and that is what makes the tale so beautiful. 

Apart from that I think he stood in between arjuna and vaishnava Astra directed towards arjun by karna to neutralize it.

@Muloghonto bhai and others I have a question

1. Bhishma is shown as invincible and un conquerable in Mahabharata but then why did he kept quiet when his contemporary evils like kams, jarasandh  and narkadura were spreading Adharma? Why didn't he challanged and killed them?? Was he incompetent or was unaware? 

2.  Why did he kept quiet during wastraharan??

 

 

I never got any satisfactory ans for those   two above questions .

Edited by speedheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, speedheat said:

Apart from that I think he stood in between arjuna and vaishnava Astra directed towards arjun by karna to neutralize it.

@Muloghonto bhai and others I have a question

1. Bhishma is shown as invincible and un conquerable in Mahabharata but then why did he kept quiet when his contemporary evils like kams, jarasandh  and narkadura were spreading Adharma? Why didn't he challanged and killed them?? Was he incompetent or was unaware? 

I don't think Bhisma ever took it upon himself to fight all Adharma in all corners of the planet. What Kamsa, Jarasandaha, etc were doing was probably seen by him as none of his business. 


Just like today, if i hate rapists & rape ( which i do), doesn't mean its my responsibility to go hunt down rapists or i am being a bad person.

9 minutes ago, speedheat said:

2.  Why did he kept quiet during wastraharan??

 

 

I never got any satisfactory ans for those   two above questions .

Perfectly fine. Bhisma's vow was to defend and uphold the throne of Hastinapur and whomever sat on it. Ergo, he was honorbound to STFU and ignore it due to his own oath.

 

 

IMO Bhisma's story is the best example of the english saying  'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' and how Mahabharata would not be a story if it wasn't for Bhisma. 

He was a demi-God, was trained by the Gods themselves in every art imaginable- warfare, rulership, etc. Had he not taken the vow to foresake the throne to cure his father's love-sickness, or had he taken on personal dishonor by breaking his oath and seizing the throne (which is rightfully his anyways) from a blind Dhritarashtra/weak Pandu, game over, no story to be told - the 'perfect king, trained by the Gods, ruled happily ever after' and Mahabharata would be a 30 page short story. 

 

 

Bhisma's story demonstrates the buddhist axiom of 'sometimes one needs to do a little evil for the greater good'.  In a way, its a warning against personal honor - for its Bhisma's sense of personal honor that ultimately caused untold deaths, misery and practically a world-war. To me, no personal honor is worth that price.

I'd happily live with the title of 'oath breaker' if it meant peace and prosperity for my citizens and no war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rkt.india said:

There is something similar in Islam as well.  If you stoop to those levels then what is the difference between you and them and in that case, the dharma is good as an adharma as well.

Can you clarify what you mean something "Similar" in Islam?

 

Dharma here means Righteousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

.

Quote

Sorry my bad. 

However, Krishna is not without his deception/deceit. It was him that 'hid the sun' and falsely declared the day over, to kill whatsisname that Arjuna had vowed to kill within the day or commit suicide. 

If Surya gave Karna the kavach-kundala, its perfectly moral and just: a father has the moral right to give his children what is his. 
However, this doesn't excuse Indra's deception or Krishna's deception during Kurukshetra.

He Hid the sun but he didnot declare the day as over. The day have to be dclared close by the two Commander in Chiefs.There was no deceit here by Krishna.

 

The Kavach and Kundala were of the devtas not Surya Dev alone. Devtas are to grant boons on basis of penance and karma and not gift it to humans. Surya Dev gave the Kavach and Kundala to Karna at birth. Did Indra give Arjuna the use of Vajra?No. \

 

Quote

I tolerate them, which is why i am not for banning religion. Learn that freedom of speech and ideas means that as long as no living entity is being libelled against, you have the right to say whatever you want. I shall defend YOUR right to chant 'ram nam satya hai' or 'Allah-hu-akbar' in public. Because its your right. Sad to see that right wingers do not extend the same right to atheists, who are also equally in the right to say 'God is BS'.

Again i do not attack your belief of not having faith in gods.Why do you need to attack mine by calling Gods BS?

Quote

False. Two wrongs don't make a right. A wrong action, is still a wrong action whether its committed against a treacherous person or not. Just because a person is a criminal, does not give you the right to abuse their personal freedoms. 

This is your interpretation.Your views. Establishment of Rigteousness and destroying evil is allowed. Once you have committed a crime you cannot claim the same rights as another innocent man.

 

Quote

Show me where it says that....in any scripture. I will wait.

The stories THEMSELVES show that Avatars are not infallible. Rama regretted sending Sita into banishment. If Avatars are infallible, then it means each and every action of the avatar is infallible, ergo, Rama would not have committed an action he regrets. That is direct contradiction of the term 'infallible' and the tales themselves demonstrate that Avatars are not infallible

Read the Bhagvat Gita and how it describes Krishna.Read the various adjectives that are used.

 

Rama didnot regret.Rather he explained why he had to banish Sita despite personally not doubting her. He showed by example how a leader must rise above his personal opinions and personal pain to set an example to the society.

 

Next time read how both Rama and Krishna showed their virat avatars to their devotees in Ramayana and Mahabharata. Avatars are just the manisfestation of god in another form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

 

Quote

Hiding the sun so others think the day is over, is clear-cut deceit. He does not get a free pass for being a God avatar. If i turn the lights off in a store and then customers think 'store is closed',its still my action (deceitful) that made the customers think so. 

 

Good conduct/evil conduct is based on the conduct. Not who does it. You are trying to justify Krishna's action because you have this notion that apparently because Krishna was a god-avatar, he cannot commit any wrong. Yet, he committed numerous wrongs.

 

Says who ? show me where it says that Devatas cannot give their own children stuff they have access to. Kavach-kundala was Surya's, the devatas don't have a communist 'common astras for all devatas' philosophy. Brahmastra is Brahma's property to give as he sees. Same with Surya's kavach and Kundala. 

It is the duty of the enemy to recheck the facts before declaring the day over. Creating confusion among the enemy ranks is not deceit, its strategy. What next? One should not use XYZ weapon as the enemy doesnt have a counter to it?

 

War to establish righteousness is not a shop. learn the difference first.

 

You are in no position to judge who is right who is wrong.Heck you are not even entitled by law to judge a fellow human being's action let alone God's.Krishna committed no wrong.You are manufacturing faults to support your own views.

 

Boons are to be granted on basis of Karma.Read how people got boons by hard penance or sacrifice or such deeds. It wa snot Surya Devta's which is why it could be taken away by Indra. yes the Swargalok does have a Dev Shastragaar, it houses the divine weapons of the gods and it had just one armour that Surya Dev gave to Karna. The Armour is not Surya Kavach?Is it? Various people possessed the Brahmastra simulataneously as it could be granted to many people.Only one person in entire Hinduism possessed a Kavach that could stop all weapons. It was a unique defensive weapon, the only defensive weapon mentioned in any hindu scripture.

 

 

Quote

Because any belief system deserves to be attacked and by surviving said attack, it establishes itself. Freedom of speech and thought- only evil/wrong stuff needs censorship to be protected. Satyameva jayate-to muzzle criticism is to tacitly admit that you are supporting BS and need people to be muzzled for BS to exist. 

Again stop ramming your own views down other's throats. You have no right to attack or insult my belief. You are free to not believe in it but your freedom doesnot give you the right to attack anyone or his beliefs. Its none of your concern what I believe in, thats my personal space, you have no right to encroach on it.The same right resides with billions.

 

Quote

Ofcourse you can. Its called universal human rights, something India is also a signatory to. Comitting evil, is still evil, even if it is to fight evil. Just because you were found guilty of a crime does not give me the license to violate your right to person and thus rape you. 

Innocent people as well as criminals have the same rights. Thats the fundamental pillar of Indian justice system. 

The rights of a criminal is not the same as the rights of a innocent man. A criminal can be hanged or shot or electrocute or confined in solitude or removed from society.He can have his freedom curtailed or taken away.

 

Quote

Sure. It still does not explicitly say that Krishna == Vishnu in all aspects outside of pure power. 

Again.Read the various adjectives used and how is Krishna referred to in the Gita. It mentions not only power.

 

Quote

I can quote you the passage from Ramayana where Rama clearly regretted sending Sita into vanvaas to Lav and Kush. 

 

And no, what Rama showed is that he caved in to macho-culture pressure and failed as a husband.  There is no good example to be set by punishing someone (banishment) without any proof being presented. So not only did he violate fundamental principle of justice, he also violated fundamental principle of being a husband. 

But they are NOT God. They are NOT infallible and that is why the avatars themselves do not live up to the all-knowing, all-seeing status of their Godly selves. 

Again Rama talks about his actions as a husband not as a king.

 

The duties of a King are more important than that of a Husband. The King must at all times consider the good of the society to be above his own personal pain or belief.Lord Rama set that example. He removed his wife from his life, a act that is legal even today according to law.

 

They are GOD.They are everything that their Godly Selves are.Just the form is different.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Hiding the sun so others think the day is over, is clear-cut deceit. He does not get a free pass for being a God avatar. If i turn the lights off in a store and then customers think 'store is closed',its still my action (deceitful) that made the customers think 

In Ramayana indrajeet fired all three deadliest weapon Brahamastra , Narayan astra and pashupatast on Lakshman.All three refused to kill him , was that not cheating from gods.At that point Indrajeet realised Lakshman in invincible and went to Ravana to request him return sita

 

 

The fact is all entire mythology is full of deceit and favouratism , none of them can be justified by today's liberal logic

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bhishma was truly great he should have broken his oath to defend/protect Hastinapur crown and sided with the just party. What he did wasn't sacrifice, had he been an oathbreaker and faced consequences of that action he would have been truly respectworthy in my eyes. IMO he was selfish and for the greater good it is absolutely justified to put personal honour on the backseat even if it results in lowering one's standing/social status or earns one bad karma/curse. 

Edited by Gollum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

It is the duty of the enemy to recheck the facts before declaring the day over. Creating confusion among the enemy ranks is not deceit, its strategy. What next? One should not use XYZ weapon as the enemy doesnt have a counter to it?

Didn't you say Krishna was a God ? Gods are now held to the same benchmark as common men ? 
Hiding the sun and pretending it is normal, *IS* deceit. Then releasing the sun as soon as the enemy is coming out in the open, *IS* deceit. 

A deceitful strategy to win is justified, but it is still deceit. You are pretending that a deceitful strategy is not deceit because a God did it, whereas i am not saying the strategy is invalid - it IS valid, but it is also deceptive and thus wrong. I subscribe to the morality of 'anything goes' in war. That means i accept deceit and treachery to win wars. However, i dont pretend that it is NOT deceit or treachery simply because a God did it.

 

Quote

War to establish righteousness is not a shop. learn the difference first.

Irrelevant. A deceit is a deceit. A lie is a lie. Doesn't matter if its on the battlefield or on an exam, doesn't matter if its you or Krishna or Jesus who commits it. 

 

Quote

You are in no position to judge who is right who is wrong.Heck you are not even entitled by law to judge a fellow human being's action let alone God's.Krishna committed no wrong.You are manufacturing faults to support your own views.

If i am in no position to judge what is right and what is wrong, then neither are you. Ergo, you are also in no position to negate my opinion that Krishna committed deceit. 

Nothing is being manufactured here. Krishna hid the sun, withheld info from the commanders (that the sun hadn't set but he's hid it) when they declared the day done. That is deceit by withholding information - same thing as perjury really in a court of law (where deliberately witholding info is considered a criminal act). These are the bare facts. 

 

Quote

Boons are to be granted on basis of Karma.

Says who ? Says where in the scriptures ? Quote it please. 

Quote

Read how people got boons by hard penance or sacrifice or such deeds.

There is no one way of getting boons in Hinduism. Sometimes you do a lot of penance to get boons, sometimes you do that and don't get boons. And sometimes a God just pops by, is impressed by you and gives you a boon. 

Quote

It wa snot Surya Devta's which is why it could be taken away by Indra. yes the Swargalok does have a Dev Shastragaar, it houses the divine weapons of the gods and it had just one armour that Surya Dev gave to Karna.

this is utter nonsense. Please quote the mahabharata part or any of the vedas or such where it says that in Swargaloka every devata owns every article/nobobdy owns any article. You just pulled it out of your rear end. There is zero evidece that Indra could've taken it away if Karna had decieded not to give it as alms. The owner of anything has the power to give it away to anyone. In this case,Karna was the owner of the Kavach-kundala and he had full power to give it away, which he did.

 

Quote

The Armour is not Surya Kavach?Is it? Various people possessed the Brahmastra simulataneously as it could be granted to many people.

Indeed. And its Brahmhastra, which means its up to Brahmna to deciede how to give it and who to give it or when to give it. Other Gods don't get to mess with that, just like other Gods don't get to mess with when Surya gives his kavach-kundala to whom. And in this case, he didn't just give it to anyone but gave it to his own son. Perfectly legitimate. 

Quote

Only one person in entire Hinduism possessed a Kavach that could stop all weapons. It was a unique defensive weapon, the only defensive weapon mentioned in any hindu scripture.

Whoptee-freaking-doo. Doesn't change the fact that Indra flat-out lied and took false identity to get it from Karna. 

Quote

 

Again stop ramming your own views down other's throats. You have no right to attack or insult my belief.

Ofcourse i do. I have full right to critique any religion, any philosophy, etc. within the purview of the net-neutrality acts worldwide. A given site can have its own rules, but nowhere in the manifesto of this website does it say that one does not have the right to criticize a particular religion or philosophy. 

Quote

You are free to not believe in it but your freedom doesnot give you the right to attack anyone or his beliefs. Its none of your concern what I believe in, thats my personal space, you have no right to encroach on it.The same right resides with billions.

My freedom does indeed give me the right to say whatever i wish about any idea or any person who is not alive today. Same goes for you. Your personal space does not extend to social arenas. 

Quote

 

The rights of a criminal is not the same as the rights of a innocent man. A criminal can be hanged or shot or electrocute or confined in solitude or removed from society.He can have his freedom curtailed or taken away.

He can have his freedom taken away. But he still has every single fundamental right as a free citizen. You could be a mass-murderer, but you still have right to not be raped. Right to not be starved, have your hair pulled out, eyes gouged (all falling under a human beings right to not be tortured). 

 

Fighting a criminal does NOT give you the right to get your acts of cruelty, deceit or torture be deemed as kindness, truth and benevolence. You can argue legitimately that to fight fire with fire you need to commit heinous acts against criminals. Thats fine. Which is why i didn't say Krishna shouldn't have been deceitful or shouldn't have perjured himself. What he did was necessary. But it doesn't make his actions honest either.

 

 

Again, just because you are guilty of murder, does it mean i can rape you ? Yes/no response please. 

Quote

 

Again.Read the various adjectives used and how is Krishna referred to in the Gita. It mentions not only power.

I don't care how he is described. Read the various tales of krishna in the mahabharata itself. An all-knowing, all-powerful God avatar does not act like a naughty little kid stealing cream or clothes of women bathing in the river. It doesn't change the fact that Krishna was deceitful during Kurukshetra by hiding the sun. 
Your religion is no different from other religions where the claims (as in the epithets used for the Gods) simply does not measure up to the actions expected from an allknowing, all-powerful being. 
 

 

Quote

Again Rama talks about his actions as a husband not as a king.

So let me get this straight - an all-knowing, all-powerful being (God-Avatar), is displaying remorse and regret for his action. Doesn't matter if it is in the capacity of a husband, brother, king, son, whatever. Please reconcile the idea of regret and remorse with all-powerful and all-knowing. 

Quote

The duties of a King are more important than that of a Husband. The King must at all times consider the good of the society to be above his own personal pain or belief.Lord Rama set that example. He removed his wife from his life, a act that is legal even today according to law.

Incorrect. He failed as a king in this regard. The duty of a king is to uphold justice. No proof was presented against Sita, yet he caved to the macho pressures of seeing her as unclean. According to you he is equal of Vishnu, simply Vishnu in flesh and blood. He could've used his divine power to determine the truth. But nope, he did no such thing. He simply bent under the pressure of allegation with zero proof. A good king does not set the example of declaring someone as guilty without evidence. 

Quote

They are GOD.They are everything that their Godly Selves are.Just the form is different.

False. Their actions do not reconcile with this view. If they were Gods, then they'd know everything, see every single possible scenario, have infinite power and wisdom. And such a being does not display remorse- which is a fundamental admission of error. An all-powerful, all-knowing being is, by definition, incapable of error. That in the Ramayana it CLEARLY says that Ram was remorseful for banishing Sita, is decisive, incontrovertible proof that he is not equal of Vishnu with infinite power and infinite knowledge. 

 

Otherwise, please reconcile the idea of an infinitely powerful, all-knowing being committing an error and having remorse. I will wait.

 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×