The Bhagavad Gita Revisited - Part 2
(Son of pandu,Bheem was born) 3. Shastra (watch the video) @parastthukral as #dhritarashtra @_siddhaanth_ as #adhirathsushena - 17 days ago. 11 Likes . Consequently, she was shocked to learn of his blindness after marriage. Thus, her . That's the spirit #memesforlife #memesdaily #memes #cricket #. Dhritarashtra's hundred sons were the Kauravas; Pandu's five sons, the to Ganga preceded his marriage to Satyavati. b: Pandu and Dhritarashtra were. In the Hindu epic Mahabharata, Dhritarashtra is the King of Kuru Kingdom with its capital Dhritarashtra, along with his younger half-brother Pandu is trained in the military arts by Bhishma and Kripacharya. Hindered by his handicap.
However, Duryodhana conspired to arrest him that resulted in failure of mission. After Krishna's peace mission failed and the war seemed inevitable, Vyasa approached Dhritarashtra and offered to grant him divine vision, so that Dhritarashtra could see the war. However, not willing to see his kin slaughtered, Dhritarashtra asked that the boon be given to Sanjaya his charioteer. Sanjaya dutifully narrates the war to his liege, reporting how Bhima killed all his children.Mahabharat Episode -7- Dhritarashtra and Gandhari,Pandu and Kunti get married and Karna's birth.
Sanjaya would console the blind king while challenging the king with his own viewpoints and morals. When Lord Krishna displayed his Vishvarupa Universal Form to Arjuna on the battlefield of KurukshetraDhritarashtra regretted not possessing the divine sight. He rejoiced whenever the tide of war turned against Pandavas. However, the results of the war devastated him.
Arjuna promptly succumbs, a sad ending to the Gita. Was the smart money back then on the Gita? These questions can provide us another data point alongside critiques based on modern standards. Of course, as I noted in Part 1there are a few morally good and many morally neutral injunctions in the Gita. That said, these empathic verses do leave the door open for a selective reading that is more charitable to karma-yoga, or the path of action.
He also advocated a far more egalitarian social ethics than the one implicit in the Gita. But those who lead others through nonviolent means, knowing right and wrong, may be called guardians of the dharma.
My goal here is to evaluate the quality of ideas in the Gita in light of other ideas that were on offer to discerning people back then. For instance, here is how the Buddha approached dharmic duties and spiritual paths: Do not be led by Holy Scriptures, or by mere logic or inference, or by appearances, or by the authority of religious teachers.
But when you realize that something is unwholesome and bad for you, give it up. And when you realize that something is wholesome and good for you, do it. Be prepared to let go of even the most profound insight or the most wholesome teaching. Be a lamp to yourself. Be your own confidence.
Nor are humans to be relied on to make up their own dharma.
I am born in every age to protect the good, to destroy evil, and to re-establish dharma. Only this world exists, there is no beyond. The Carvaka held that the Vedas are a cheat; they serve to make men submissive through fear and rituals. Nature is indifferent to good and evil, and history does not bear witness to Divine Providence. Such qualitatively different worldviews coexisted with the one in the Gita. Krishna frequently insists that a mind established in Brahman is free from delusion.
That Brahman itself is a grand delusion was something the Buddha realized centuries earlier, arguing instead that there is no objective, mind-independent reality that is accessible to us. In other words, it is incoherent to speak of a firm foundation beneath the world of appearances, which the mind perceives through its conceptual categories.
Nor is there a stable and unchanging Self. The Context of the Mahabharata The Gita adapted certain philosophical ideas that were surely revolutionary when they first arose and challenged the ritualistic Vedic religion. However, centuries later, in light of the contending intellectual and moral ideas of its day, it had assumed the role of a highly conservative tract, aligning itself with orthodoxy, authority, and hierarchy.
Whereas I see the Mahabharata as great literature: The Gita, as I noted in Part 1was composed much later under the realities of a new age.
Dhritarashtra - Wikipedia
A common defensive response to a critique like this is to say that the Gita needs to be read in the context of the Mahabharata. The point is about the quality of the arguments Krishna actually uses to persuade Arjuna to fight. If the best moral justifications for the war purportedly exist outside the Gita, and some of the worst inside it, what have we left? What then makes the Gita so great? Let us consider some specific examples. For starters, the normal rules of royal succession did not apply to the situation at hand: Dhritarashtra is blind, so his younger brother, Pandu, is made the king.
But then Pandu lands a curse and retreats to the forest with his two wives, leaving Dhritarashtra to rule instead. Yudhisthira is indeed the eldest son in the family but Pandu, due to the curse, did not father him or the other four Pandavas. On the other hand, Duryodhana is the first son of the reigning and elder brother Dhritarashtra, who in his heart wants his son to be the king.
So, doesn't Duryodhana, a warrior as skilled as any and an able administrator, have a claim to succession as well? I mean a good case can be made, right?
Meanwhile, Duryodhana gets ambitious and wants the entire kingdom for the Kauravas, not just the better half of the Kuru kingdom that he stands to inherit. He loathes the Pandavas, partly because he saw them as uppity and mean to him in their youth, as young princes are wont to be.
So, as an adult, Duryodhana is scheming and vicious to the Pandavas.
But he can be kind to others, such as to the low-caste Karna. What is the effect of ending Part I at this point? What other cinematic techniques photography, mise-en-scene, movement, editing, acting, etc.
Why does Karna ask his mother to keep the secret of his birth from his brothers? Why does Arjuna, a warrior, hesitate to blow the conch signaling the beginning of battle? What does Vyasa say that Krisha is telling Arjuna here about action and detachment? In this same scene, the filmmaker has the character Krishna talk about Krishna himself in the third person.
What secret knowledge does Arjuna get from Krishna that enables him to blow the conch shell? Note the curses that come to pass: Duryodhana's death comes when he is struck in the knee, as foretold by Draupadi. Bhima does as he predicts: And Draupadi does as she says she will: And the Pandavas are victorious in the end. What is the function or meaning of these fulfillments of curses and prophesies? It is known that the war will continue until Bhisma is killed, but because of the blessing of life given to him, no one believes it is possible to kill him.
When Arjuna asks how Bhisma can be killed in order to end the war, Bhisma identifies Sikhandim as a warrior who can kill him? Krishna claims that no one can stop Karna except Ghatotkatcha, and asks him to offer Karna to the gods. When dharma is destroyed, it destroys.
Death is powerless against eternity. After the battle, Gandhari, mother of the Kauravas, curses Krishna, telling him he will be killed and rejected. He says to her, I know, and tells the story about how in 36 years a hunter, mistaking his feet for the ears of a deer, will kill him. How is it possible for a god to be killed?