Jaya: Confounding
***Spoiler Alert***
"The Mahabharata is an ancient epic where:
A son renounces sex so that his old father can remarry: Bhishma
a daughter is a prize in an archery contest: Draupadi
a teacher demands half a kingdom as his tuition fee: Dronacharya
a student is turned away because of his caste: Ekalavya and Karna by Drona
a mother asks her sons to share a wife: Kunti
a father curses his son-in-law to be old and impotent: Shukra
a husband lets another man makes his wife pregnant: Pandu
a wife blindfolds herself to share her husband's blindness: Gandhari
a forest is destroyed for a new city: Khandava-Prastha
a family is divided over inheritance: Kuru clan
a king gambles away his kingdom: Yudhishtira
a queen is forced to serve as a maid: Draupadi and Sarmishtha
a man is stripped of his manhood for a year: Arjuna
a woman is publicly disrobed: Draupadi
a war is fought where all rules are broken: Kuru-kshetra war
a shift in sexuality secures victory: Shikhandi
the vanquished go to paradise: Kauravas
the victors lose their children: Pandavas
the earth is bathed in blood: Kuru-kshetra
God is cursed: Krishna by Gandhari
until wisdom prevails"
Although I admire this great epic to a great extent, I have a lot of pet peeves about the story.
First of all, Devapi was not allowed to ascend the throne as he had skin disease and therefore his younger brother Shantanu succeeded him. By the same law, if Dhritarashtra cannot take the throne because of his blindness, then Pandu also should not have been crowned the King for he was born pale and weak.
When Draupadi was disrobed, Bhishma and Drona were silent as the Kauravas did not go against any rules and no law was broken. So dharma was not disturbed hence they did not protest. But when Pandavas sent the sages to claim their territory back after their 13 years of exile, Duryodhana refused to it. Why didn't Bhishma and Drona speak up then? Clearly Duryodhana was going against dharma. Even when Krishna pointed out that it is adhrama to go back on one's words, Duryodhana did not cave.Why were Bhishma and Drona dumb then? This subjects the reader's mind to the suspicion that Bhisma and Drona might have in fact taken sides with the Kauravas, something which Bhishma should not have done on account of keeping up his oath.
How can Drona even consider killing Pandavas? They were the ones who restored his pride against Drupada and got himself half a kingdom, which is way luxurious for a priest's son.
There were so many other incidents that were unfair to Pandavas and even Kauravas at some point of time. Pandavas, though they fought for the right cause, to restore dharma, they chose the wrong path. They won mostly by deceiving and misleading. So they were doomed in hell. But even though Kauravas were selfish and greedy, they attained the heavenly bliss because they renounced hatred and were killed in the Holy land of Kuru-kshetra. All is fair in love and war but that rule is applicable only on earth I guess.
Krishna says in Bhagavat Gita that the world we perceive is a maya: a delusion, and life after moksha or mukthi is the real world. Considering for argument sake that this is true, if we were thrown into a fantasy world, is it smart to make the best out of it or to wait in the fantasy world to get to the real world without actually experiencing anything? Everything is maya, materialistic. Yes it is. But that raises a bigger question: Why create such a fantasy world then? Why create it with both good and bad? To teach humans the value of life? Seems a little silly.
The author has showed his rationalism in his little notes in between chapters, which had a totally different and logical perspective of the ambiguous incidents and in some other cases where the epic is trying to hide the embarrassing, socially non-acceptable events.
Anyway, the mystery of Mahabharata is solved. The difference between Jaya and Vijaya is made clear. Vijaya and Jaya mean the same: Victory. Vijaya is material victory. It earns you temporary place in either Swarga (heaven) after you attain moksha, or Naraga (hell), based on the merits and demerits you have committed in your mortal life on Earth. Swarga is where all your desires are fulfilled. Jaya is spiritual victory. You attain mukthi and ascend straight to Vaikunda, eternal paradise, where you are free of all desires.
How much of this is true? I suggest you read the book yourself to choose your path.
"The Mahabharata is an ancient epic where:
A son renounces sex so that his old father can remarry: Bhishma
a daughter is a prize in an archery contest: Draupadi
a teacher demands half a kingdom as his tuition fee: Dronacharya
a student is turned away because of his caste: Ekalavya and Karna by Drona
a mother asks her sons to share a wife: Kunti
a father curses his son-in-law to be old and impotent: Shukra
a husband lets another man makes his wife pregnant: Pandu
a wife blindfolds herself to share her husband's blindness: Gandhari
a forest is destroyed for a new city: Khandava-Prastha
a family is divided over inheritance: Kuru clan
a king gambles away his kingdom: Yudhishtira
a queen is forced to serve as a maid: Draupadi and Sarmishtha
a man is stripped of his manhood for a year: Arjuna
a woman is publicly disrobed: Draupadi
a war is fought where all rules are broken: Kuru-kshetra war
a shift in sexuality secures victory: Shikhandi
the vanquished go to paradise: Kauravas
the victors lose their children: Pandavas
the earth is bathed in blood: Kuru-kshetra
God is cursed: Krishna by Gandhari
until wisdom prevails"
Although I admire this great epic to a great extent, I have a lot of pet peeves about the story.
First of all, Devapi was not allowed to ascend the throne as he had skin disease and therefore his younger brother Shantanu succeeded him. By the same law, if Dhritarashtra cannot take the throne because of his blindness, then Pandu also should not have been crowned the King for he was born pale and weak.
When Draupadi was disrobed, Bhishma and Drona were silent as the Kauravas did not go against any rules and no law was broken. So dharma was not disturbed hence they did not protest. But when Pandavas sent the sages to claim their territory back after their 13 years of exile, Duryodhana refused to it. Why didn't Bhishma and Drona speak up then? Clearly Duryodhana was going against dharma. Even when Krishna pointed out that it is adhrama to go back on one's words, Duryodhana did not cave.Why were Bhishma and Drona dumb then? This subjects the reader's mind to the suspicion that Bhisma and Drona might have in fact taken sides with the Kauravas, something which Bhishma should not have done on account of keeping up his oath.
How can Drona even consider killing Pandavas? They were the ones who restored his pride against Drupada and got himself half a kingdom, which is way luxurious for a priest's son.
There were so many other incidents that were unfair to Pandavas and even Kauravas at some point of time. Pandavas, though they fought for the right cause, to restore dharma, they chose the wrong path. They won mostly by deceiving and misleading. So they were doomed in hell. But even though Kauravas were selfish and greedy, they attained the heavenly bliss because they renounced hatred and were killed in the Holy land of Kuru-kshetra. All is fair in love and war but that rule is applicable only on earth I guess.
Krishna says in Bhagavat Gita that the world we perceive is a maya: a delusion, and life after moksha or mukthi is the real world. Considering for argument sake that this is true, if we were thrown into a fantasy world, is it smart to make the best out of it or to wait in the fantasy world to get to the real world without actually experiencing anything? Everything is maya, materialistic. Yes it is. But that raises a bigger question: Why create such a fantasy world then? Why create it with both good and bad? To teach humans the value of life? Seems a little silly.
The author has showed his rationalism in his little notes in between chapters, which had a totally different and logical perspective of the ambiguous incidents and in some other cases where the epic is trying to hide the embarrassing, socially non-acceptable events.
Anyway, the mystery of Mahabharata is solved. The difference between Jaya and Vijaya is made clear. Vijaya and Jaya mean the same: Victory. Vijaya is material victory. It earns you temporary place in either Swarga (heaven) after you attain moksha, or Naraga (hell), based on the merits and demerits you have committed in your mortal life on Earth. Swarga is where all your desires are fulfilled. Jaya is spiritual victory. You attain mukthi and ascend straight to Vaikunda, eternal paradise, where you are free of all desires.
How much of this is true? I suggest you read the book yourself to choose your path.
Duryodhana's refusal when sages asked for the territory on behalf of Pandavas is not Adharma. Because Duryodhana's argument is he spotted Pandavas (Arjuna) during last day of Agnanavasa (13th year in exile) and so according to him they are supposed to go to forest for 13 more years. Bhishma and Drona remained silent because they could not come to a conclusion (whether day ends at sunset or the next sunrise). Finally, Krishna came to the court and explained that he set the rules (as he is God) according to which, Pandavas have successfully completed the exile rules.
ReplyDeleteIn Kuru-kshetra, Krishna hides the Sun with his palm to let kauravas think that the day has ended. This means that the day ends with the sunset. This is how Krishna explained that the Pandavas completed their exile too. Bhishma, who is a great warrior knows this himself. He remained quiet because he has the protect the king and his clan no matter what, not because he was confused.
DeleteI like both of your arguments. My point is Kuru-Kshetra is a war. During war, both parties agreed to start the fight with sunrise and end with sunset. However, exile is different from war. The exile period of 1 year ends with completing last day of the year completely. This is where the confusion arises. As Smith said, this can be clarified only by Lord Krishna himself.
Delete