RE:RE:@ Rationalist
by Rationalist on Jul 10, 2008 03:21 PM Permalink
Sure Mr.JGN. I would be intrested to read it in my free time. But one thing I would like you to understand is that Dritarastra was not eligible to ascend the throne as he was blind and a person who ruled the country could not be a handicap. When he went to Himalayas in pusit of cure to his impotence he leaves the crown with Dritirastra to be returned back on his arrival.
RE:@ Rationalist
by JGN on Jul 10, 2008 03:25 PM Permalink
You are mixing up things. Pandu was cursed by a Rishi that he would die if he enjoy marital life with his wife as he had killed the Rishi's mate who were in disguise as "deer".
Of ocurse Dritarashtra was not eligible due to blindness, but his eldest Son would have been eligible.
Pandavas were not even sons of Pandu (due to above said curse). Atleast Kauravas were sons of Dritarashtra (albeit division of fetus by Veda Vyasa)!!!!!
RE:@ Rationalist
by JGN on Jul 10, 2008 03:43 PM Permalink
eagle american, pl don't jump to conclusions. Pl read my messages below. I treat Mahabharata as an Epic containing some good morals and universal truths. Nothing more than that.
RE:RE:@ Rationalist
by JGN on Jul 10, 2008 03:50 PM Permalink
have you read the Mahabharata? A major portion of the same is sub-plots - stories narrated by the well-wishers visiting the Pandavas in exile - like the story of Nala and Damayanti to lighten their burden during stay in the forests and make them understand that even good people face adversities. Read it as a story - I do not claim that it is some divine revealation, etc. Don't jump to conclusions.
RE:@ Rationalist
by Rationalist on Jul 10, 2008 04:07 PM Permalink
How can his eldest son be eligible when his father himself was not the actual king? As I said you it was Dritrastra ruling in place of Pandu. Any way Pandavas did'nt ask for the entire kingdom.They asked for a rightful place on this earth.
RE:@ Rationalist
by JGN on Jul 10, 2008 04:14 PM Permalink
This is a story to make people understand what would be the result of greed. Who was the rightful successor is not the question. Pandavas were the sons of Dharma Deva, Indra, Vayu and Ashwini Devas (not Pandus!) So they had no right to succession.
This is like the Congress party leaders and workers claiming that Ms. Sonia Gandhi has the right to become the PM of our Country by virtue of her marriage to a member of Nehru-Gandhi family!!!!!!!!!!!
RE:@ Rationalist
by Rationalist on Jul 10, 2008 04:31 PM Permalink
Then Dritarastra was also not eligible as he was son of Vedavyasa who was not the King.
RE:@ Rationalist
by JGN on Jul 10, 2008 04:39 PM Permalink
I have written above: >>>>>>>>This is a story to make people understand what would be the result of greed.............the result of Satyavati's greed to make her son the king and subsequent events..........otherwise Bhishma Pitamaha (Devavrata) would have been the King!
RE:@ Rationalist
by shakil ansari on Jul 10, 2008 03:35 PM Permalink
DEAR JGN UR ASSERSION THAT WE MUSLIM TREAT HINDUS AS OUR ENEMIES IS INCORRECT AND SPECIFICALLY DENIED. IN FACT WE SEE U AS OUR ELDERS BROTHERS
RE:RE:@ Rationalist
by JGN on Jul 10, 2008 03:47 PM Permalink
Dear shakil ansari, I do not harbour any hatred for the followers of any religion. I only questin the superstitions. I have a very close muslim friend who quote from Gita quite often and we mockingly tell him that you are muslim only in name! Some other Muslim friends are even atheists like me.
Pl visit the web of "Actual Freedom - the third alternative" This is an alternative to organized religions. This will also give you some knowledge about the basic human behaviour and the reasons behind them.
Pl try to understand that all the religions were created by vested interests for controlling the gullible masses.
When there are lakhs of followers for Sri Sri Ravi Shanker, Mata Amritanandamayi, Benny Hinn, etc even in 21st century, you could very well imagine what would have been the condition centuries ago.
RE:@ Rationalist
by Rationalist on Jul 10, 2008 04:00 PM Permalink
That way even Pandu & Dritirastra were not from Bharata lienage. They were from Vyasa lienage. But the value system that existed during that periord was different. Then foster father was more important than just biological father.
RE:@ Rationalist
by JGN on Jul 10, 2008 04:05 PM Permalink
Dear Rationalist, why are you again trying to justify something written in an Epic? What ever it is, it was the imagination of the author. An Epic is not historical record nor "gospel truth"
RE:RE:@ Rationalist
by Rationalist on Jul 10, 2008 04:08 PM Permalink
Not necessarly imagination. It may be based on incedents also.But greatly demonstrate Dharma.
RE:RE:@ Rationalist
by Rationalist on Jul 10, 2008 04:13 PM Permalink
Hindhu scriptures available are not documented when created. Most of them are preserved by transfering from person to person. That does not mean they are all imaginary.
RE:RE:@ Rationalist
by Rationalist on Jul 10, 2008 04:10 PM Permalink
But I just wanted to clarify your misunderstanding as biased to one family that you mentioned. That's all.
