[Advaita-l] Thanks [Was some questions on dharma]

Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy annapureddy at gmail.com
Tue Oct 31 00:20:52 CST 2006

namaskAramu shiva sEnAni gAru,

> I am not that sure that Bhishma's situation is as clear as you seem to put
> it. Putting the rules of succession aside, if you look back at the original
> bet in the game of dice, that is, 12 years of dwelling in forests and 1 year
> incognito, the reason behind this structure is that any person absconding
> for so many years is technically on par with the dead, and by implication
> that kingdom can be absorbed by whoever is maintaining the status quo. So,
> as per the prevailing dharma of that time, it seems that Duryodhana's stance
> was technically the correct one. If one goes through the sabhA parvan, all
> the advice offered / opinion expressed is along the lines of a) the entire
> kingdom was consolidated / strengthened by King Pandu, b) Yudhishthira makes
> a sterling king and c) war will destroy the Kurus (both sides) and the
> Pandavas are likely to emerge winners; so peace be made. The strain of
> "usurping your brothers kingdom is adharma" is never heard.

Please refer to this section of the udyOga parva for sAtyaki's speech
condemning shrI balarAma (that sAtyaki should speak against shrI balarAma, I
find very strange; but in any case):
It clearly talks of usurping of the throne by duryOdhana.

As for someone being dead on account of living in the forests, could you
maybe point out a reference (since I haven't seen this rationale being given
by duryOdhana or the others on his side). And in any case, the pAnDavas were
in touch with the people for all the 12 years in the forest (for example,
duryOdhana's insult at the hands of the gandharvas etc.)

Looking at the whole thing from a different angle, if any of the advisors
> don't like what a king is doing, the technically correct position is to say
> so clearly  and crisply,  not abandon the king. In the case of Vibhishana,
> he was thrown out by the king; Vibhishana never even hinted that he would
> not fight to defend the king.

I agree with you fully on this. In fact, this is one of the reasons that
could have tied bhIShma down (in that he was never disregarded by any of the
kurus). But since madhvAchArya criticized bhIShma's actions, I was wondering
about the issues of dharma involved behind such episodes.

It is like an American w.r.t. Iraq: an American can internally say a
> thousand things about why it is not good to meddle in Iraq, but when it
> comes to the actual fighting, it is expected that he support America.

Again, I completely agree. But then the dvaitins would give the example of
vidura (and yuyutsu too, though yuyutsu's case stands on shaky ground, I
feel). praNAm.h.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list