![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
One of the things which makes this story so fascinating, at least to me, is the moral ambiguity. And so, I present to you the MB moral dilemma poll!
You do not need to have finished (or even read) it to play, though you'll have a lot more context if you have. Beware spoilers in questions.
[Poll #951843]
You do not need to have finished (or even read) it to play, though you'll have a lot more context if you have. Beware spoilers in questions.
[Poll #951843]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
But most of the dishonorable deeds of Kurukshetra were egged on by or at least approved of by some divinity or other on the grounds of the ends justifying the means, or two wrongs making a right. However, not all divinities were on the same side, so there was divine disagreement-- sometimes nearly coming to blows.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I think the next version that I read was the Krishna Dharma novelization, which didn't pull any punches in that scene. And my naive little mind broke.
For the "taking advantage of someone's vow" bit, what about how Duryodhana tricked Shalya into signing on with him? Poor Shalya and his Kryptonite-like weakness for free cookies.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Hee!
On a related note, remember the part where Rukmi shows up to volunteer his services and is so arrogant that the Pandavas throw him out, and then does the exact same thing to the Kauravas and they throw him out too? If I remember correctly, the result is that Rukmi is one of the very few people who survive the war. The law of unexpected consequences, I wonder, or was Rukmi just smarter than everyone else...
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
By the way, your icon is beautiful. Where is it from?
From:
no subject
i searched for 'arjuna' in the google image search, and this is what came. i've posted the original pic on my journal, take a peek.
From:
no subject
(That is, I can't pick a 'worse' in 1, assuming 'you' aren't in some way responsible for your aunt and cousins. And my answer to 3 changes depending on whether 'I'm' just a better gambling or am cheating.)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
(And their not being innocent wouldn't actually give me any more right to try to kill them.)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Hmm. Have you ever read Njal's Saga?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I'll just say it's not alternatively known as "The Saga of Burnt Njal" for nothing.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Also, regarding question number 1, I have long found it very convenient that the only man who could have testified about who was behind the construction burned to death that night. It takes a certain amount of gall to carry off this bit:
Oh, Duryodhana is so evil, so very evil, why he tried to burn us alive!
How did we escape? Well, we found out about the plot, dug out a tunnel, trapped some poor strangers and got them drunk, then we set that house on fire and escaped. We knew that that woman and her sons would be mistaken for us. God is great for saving us, and Duryodhana is so evil fr planning to burn us the way we burned that woman and her sons.
Can we *prove* that it was Duryodhana whodid this to us? Well, y'know, we could have, for Purochana would have talked, but we left him to burn to death too. In fact, we made sure that he was there before we set this house on fire. Isn't Duryodhana evil?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
See, if Duryodhana was *still* listening to Krishna's 'well-meant' advice, then he was not being a good king, and letting wishful thinking cloud his judgement. Krishna was openly, unabashedly on the Pandava side. There is absolutely no justification, no reason for Duryodhana to listen to him.
As for the latter, well, that was the only way to cement the claim for which so much had been destroyed. Duryodhana, after all, was the true heir to the city of elephants. Pandavas' claim was spurious, had always been spurious, and their rule would not have been safe had Duryodhana remained alive. And, again, it was Duryodhana's decision to accept the challenge, to answer the calls. I reckon he was looking for death.
From:
no subject
by the way, though 'Hastina' may mean 'city of the elephant', it is actually named after a forefather of the kauravas, the king Hasti, who founded the city. the name Hastinapur means 'Hasti's city'.
From:
no subject
And, as far as I recall, Gandhari conceived before Kunti. I could be wrong, but I think Pandu conceived a desire for children only when news of Gandhari's pregnancy reached the mountains. And that would be only after 3 months of gestation or so. And I also seem to recall that when Yudhishthira was born, Gandhari was more than an year pregnant.
Nor am I too sure why you think her reaction had anything to do with the Pandava claim. It seems like a normal enough reaction for someone who has been carrying for more than an year. And the thoughts attributed to her support that. Nor is there ever any mention that when the Pandavas turn up at Hastinapur, they are welcomed as heir apparents. The welcome was consistent with them being sons of the house and nothing more. The first time Yudhu's claim to the throne is mentioned is when someone says that he is very popular and the people want it. And that really doesn't strike me as the recognition of an unshakable indisputed claim, but like working the people and the tactical positioning of self.
One last thing, and then I must dash off,city of elephants is a play on the name, and one that is metioned in the text itself. Y';see, the city was establlished well after the House of Kurus became a powerful one, and the streets were wide enough to let X number of elephants walk abreast. The people seem to have been proud of that.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Dhritrashtra agreed to it because he was told that people might well rebel if he doesn't do so, and Shakuni said that the path between the appointment as the crown prince and the throne was long and by no means assured.
From:
no subject
Pandu never abdicated. He appointed Dhritarashtra as his regent, and went to live in the forests, albeit to hide his impotence. He sent a messenger to Hastinapur saying that ‘the King Pandu renounces wealth, desire, joy, and physical passion’, certainly not the throne, nor the kingdom.
Succession by primogeniture was the usual practice, unless the reigning king nominated someone. Which Bharata and Yayati did. And do recall the exceptional circumstances in which Yayati exiled/ expelled his other sons, not because they had any fault as such, but they had refused his exchange offer of old age for youth. Only Puru was left. Besides, Yadu and Puru were never kings in the same land. Obviously their sons would not see themselves as contenders to the same throne.
Gandhari was pregnant for 2 years actually, and Duryodhana was born 2 years after the release of the ball of flesh. After his birth, Dhritarashtra called all the elders of the family together and asked them [I am re-translating directly from the unabridged Bengali translation by Kaliprasanna Sinha] – ‘All my elders are present here today. It is known that Prince Yudhisthira is the eldest and the most capable, and he will succeed to this throne. I have no more to comment on this as well. All I want to know is that will this eldest son of mine succeed to the throne after Yudhisthira? Tell me what you decide.’ He himself regarded his sibling’s offspring as potential contender. Which means that neither had Pandu abdicated, nor were they in the dark about Pandu’s sons being born. And that was the first time anyone ever discussed Yudhisthira’s claim to the throne. So is it any wonder that the heirs apparent would have no great welcome at the regent’s house? It is also said that Duryodhana was always jealous of the Pandavas, and who do you think put it into his head except his father?
It doesn’t say in my translation that Pandu heard of Gandhari’s gestation before he decided to try for children himself. But it’s possible that he heard of it, though he was miles away at the Shatashringa mountains at the moment. The day Kunti called Dharma, that was the day Gandhari’s gestation period completed one year.
Okay, okay, maybe Gandhari was plain jealous of Kunti :). May I add you as friend?
From:
no subject
I'll get back to the debate though - I spent more than 7 hours househunting, and the sun about fried my brain. And then the kids ate it up. :)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
And yes, it would be wonderful to get to keep a part of my brain. :)
From:
no subject
Ah, well. The last four questions are wicked.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
rabid fangirlswomen who couldn't stay out of each other's faces, as I recall.)From:
no subject
But mostly arguing laws at great length. Oh lordy.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
'other' reasons for wanting a son
Sadly enough Pandu was still in Yama's palace when Narada visited Yudhishthira and told him to perform Rajasuya.