Vidura didn't fight - why?

[Guest guest]

Greetings!

 

Anand Natarajan and Ashish Chandra had interesting debates on why

Vidura did not fight the great Mahabharata war.

 

IMHO, in the Udhyoga Parva, Krishna declined to stay at the

residences of Dushasana, Bheeshma, Drona and Kripa. Vidura was

blessed to have been able to offer hospitality and food to Krishna at his

hut when the latter came there as a messenger of peace on behalf of

the Pandavas. It seems that one who accepts the hospitality and food

of a host, should assist the host and not be his rival according to the

codes of dharma. Like in the case of Salya.

 

Apart from that, after Krishna left, Duryodhana humiliated Vidura

terribly by calling him the son of a prostitute etc. and chided him for

offering Krishna ("a mere cowherd") hospitality. At that moment, Vidura

wanted to sever Duryodhana's head and strung his bow but instead by

compassion, decided to punish Duryodhana by not helping him in war

and broke his bow in two.

 

It was said that Vidura was very skilled in archery and it was the

Kauravas' loss that he declined to fight on their behalf. Just because

Vidura was a jnani or a sattvic person, did not qualify him to evade war.

After all, Bheeshma, Sahadeva etc. are all jnanis and sattvic. He didn't

fight because he was terribly humiliated by Duryodhana.

 

But, due to loyalty of taking shelter under his brother, Dhritarashtra's

kingdom, Vidura did not fight for the Pandavas either. He was no

coward by any standard. He was the greatest voice in Hastinapura

calling for the Kauravas to uphold their promise and be peaceful.

 

Vidura was very.. very.. similar to Vibeeshana of the Ramayana, who

was brother of Ravana and played a similar role calling for peace and

later, went against Ravana.

 

 

--

Warmest regards,

Ruben

rubenn

_____________

StudyCircle: Mailing List on multifaith religion & spirituality

see http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/9261/studycircle/

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Rubinji:

 

I enjoyed your narration and assessment and quite agree with you. Your

understanding of Mahabharat and especially the characterization of Vidura is

commendable. It is quite appropriate for all of us to conduct a quick review of

Mahabharat before the Gita Satsang. Let me add some additional points regarding

the three jnanis - Vidura, Bhishma and Drona.

 

According to Bhagavad Gita whenever there is adharma, it brings grief, sorrow

and confusion until Dharma gets reestablished. One of the stake that the

Pandavas employed during the gambling episode was Draupadi, their wife. First,

what the Pandavas did was against the Dhamra and it was done without the consent

of Draupadi. When they lost their stake, Duryodhana asked his brother Dhushasana

to bring Draupadi before the King's assembly hall. Dhusthadhana grabbed

Darupadi's hair and dragged her to the hall in front of all the noble persons

(Vidura, Bhishma, Drona and others) and tried to disrobe her. Draupadi with

tears flowing through her eyes pleaded for help and got the help from the Lord

(Krishna). However, when the woman was dishonored in front of everyone in an

assembly hall that is adharma and everyone who is responsible gets grief and

misery. According to Manu Smriti, 3.55-5; 9.3-7, 11, 26: "Women must be honored

and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law who desire

great

This may explain why everyone who is responsible for this episode of dishonor to

a woman suffered and punished. However, the punishment varied by the intensity

of their involvement. Bhishma and Drona who did not take the necessary actions

to stop that had to pay the price. They had a choice between two Dharmas: (1)

obey the king and say nothing and (2) disobey the king and stop the attempted

dishonor of a woman. They made the wrong choice and had left with no choice

other than fighting the war and die for the king! However, Vidura was furious

and pleaded with king Dhritarashtra, Duryodhana and Dushasana to stop it but

couldn't succeed. But Duryodhana was not pleased with Vidura at time and was

never comfortable with his presence during the war. This is another reason why

Vidura didn't fight the war. The Pandavas had to suffer for twelve years

because they didn't prevent tears from their wife, Draupadi and she didn't get

the help from their husbands at the most needed time.

 

Ram Chandran

>"Ruben" <rubenn

>

>Greetings!

>

>Anand Natarajan and Ashish Chandra had interesting debates on why

>Vidura did not fight the great Mahabharata war.

>

[Guest guest]

Namste Ruben,

 

Very interesting mail. I dont disagree with you. However I was

not talking from the epic point of view. First I will follow your trend and tell

something from the epic. Bhishmacharya had to fight because he had sworn to

defend Hastinapura as long as he lived. Dronacharya was in a similar position.

However Vidura did not have any such obligation because he was a minister and he

was a Jnani who did not have any such BONDAGE. He was ever free. Even

Bhishmacharya used to consult Sri Vidura on state matters.

Now from the not so epic point of view in which I originaly

wrote, A Kshatriya is defined as one who is dominated by a mixture of rajas and

sattva. Arjuna being a Kshatriya had this trait in him. His duty spiritually

speaking is to move towards pure sattva and then towards the Nirguna state. He

can do this only be performing his duty in a detached fashion. By this his mind

will move towards a saatvic state(that is equanimity in pleasure and pain).

 

For vidura , all he needed spiritually was to go into samadhi. He does not need

Karma yoga any more as a purifying agency. He already was a karma yogin and had

no obligations like Bhishmacharya.

 

Regards,

Anand

 

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

Ram Chandran wrote:

>

> [...] Let me add some additional points regarding the three jnanis -

> Vidura, Bhishma and Drona.

>

> [...]

>

> Bhishma and Drona who did not take the necessary actions to stop

> that had to pay the price.

 

point overlooked? jnani-s cannot

have a karmic price to pay...

 

namaskaar

[Guest guest]

I am not a jnani, I overlooked and I paid the price!

 

Namaskar

>"f. maiello" <egodust

>

>

>point overlooked? jnani-s cannot

>have a karmic price to pay...

>

>namaskaar

[Guest guest]

Ram Chandran wrote:

>

> "Ram Chandran" <chandran

>

> I am not a jnani, I overlooked and I paid the price!

>

> Namaskar

>

 

oh? in my opinion, to say that one is or one isn't

is equally untrue...both being merely isolated thoughts

that come and go...

 

ever with you

in OM

 

 

> >"f. maiello" <egodust

> >

>

> >

> >point overlooked? jnani-s cannot

> >have a karmic price to pay...

> >

> >namaskaar

>

> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

> Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests!

> Sign up for eLerts at:

> <a href=" http://clickme./ad/elerts1 ">Click Here</a>

>

> ------

>

> Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives are

available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email Address:

advaitins

>

[Guest guest]

Anand wrote:

> Very interesting mail. I dont disagree with you. However I

was not talking from the epic point of view. First I will follow your trend and

tell something from the epic. Bhishmacharya had to fight because he had sworn to

defend Hastinapura as long as he lived. Dronacharya was

in a similar position. However Vidura did not have any such obligation because

he was a minister and he was a Jnani who did not have any such BONDAGE. He was

ever free. Even Bhishmacharya used to consult Sri Vidura on state matters.

 

Namaste Anand-ji,

 

I beg to differ. Vidura was OBLIGED to serve under the Kauravas in the

war. It was Krishna's Leela to purposely choose to stay at Vidura's

place, so that eventually, Vidura won't fight for the Kauravas after being

insulted. This was part of His master plan to facilitate the losing of the

Kauravas since Vidura's bow was considered invincible. VIDURA

WOULD OF FOUGHT if Krishna did not enact this episode. He

wouldn't of been excused by such excuses.

 

Why? Even Vyaasa, a greater sage had to do Niyoga by cohabiting

with Ambika and Ambalika. Bheeshma, Drona and some others are all

jnAnis but were not excused.

 

Vidura had a body and by Bhagavad Gita (BG) 3.04-05 and 3.16, we

understand that anyone with a body or life cannot abstain from work.

As a minister and as one who takes shelter in the kingdom of his

brother, it will become Vidura's dharma and duty to fight for the

Kauravas or serve them in other ways. But, as a jnAni, he has one

exception: Vidura would be free from the binds of karma as per BG

4.14 and the rest of chapter 4. Clearly, if he asked to be excused

because he is a jnAni, then he truly does not understand the

knowledge of actionlessness and inaction and therefore isn't a jnAni.

 

Please see the following verse:

"But Samnyasa, O Arjuna, is difficult to attain without Karma-yoga. A

Karma-yogi sage quickly attains Brahman." (BG 5.06)

>From here, we can see that however much Vidura could escape, but

karma yoga is something that any spiritual person (even yogeshwara

Krishna) with a body and life cannot escape while still being in that

incarnation.

 

 

--

Warmest regards,

Ruben

rubenn

_____________

[Guest guest]

-

> "Ruben" <rubenn

> I beg to differ. Vidura was OBLIGED to serve under the Kauravas in the

> war. It was Krishna's Leela to purposely choose to stay at Vidura's

> place, so that eventually, Vidura won't fight for the Kauravas after being

 

Hari Om!

 

Vidura is one of the characters that I admire very much... If we have to

understand Vidura we have to fully follow the Mahabharata in all aspects

where ever Vidura is shown. Let me explain why I think Vidura is not

obiliged fight the War (you can feel free to differ again :-))

 

Unlike Bhishma and Drona --- Vidura is not an appointed minister. Bhisma

made a promise to his step-mother that he will fight for the sake of

kuruvaMSa till his death. He owed this to his mother, that is why he

fought. Drona is known to everyone as an appointed man.

 

If Vidura were the appointed minister then Dhrusthra would have consulted

him long before he lost his sleep... Though Vidura is aware of everything

going on in the royal palace, he never speaks out because he is not asked

for.... Wiseman never speak or participate in anything with out being

asked....

 

One day, Dhrusthra couldn't sleep and calls for Vidura and questions him why

he is not getting the sleep. At this context Vidura advises Dhrutarasthra

on many points. This text is very famous in Mahabharata as "Vidura Neeti"

(Moral lessons by Vidura). The following text is what I remember from

Viduraniti: (it is worth reading if you have the text)

 

Vidura Niti:

Vidura fully understands that Duryodhana is the cause of all evil. Since he

is asked, he decides to advise Dhrutarasthra to get rid of Duryodhana.

 

"Dear brother, it is your Son duryOdhana who is the cause of all evil, I

would strongly recommend that you get rid of him now, before it is too late,

before the entire kaurava kingdom perishes" Vidura advises...

 

"My dear brother, but he is grown out of me" replies Dhrusthra

 

"nails and hair also grows out of you, don't you cut them? don't you get rid

of them? then why this blind affection towards Duryodhana?" says Vidura

 

"It is not just Duryodhana grown out of me, nails do not have life, where as

my Duryodhana has life. He is a living thing born out of me, how do I get

rid of my own flesh and blood?" Dhrusthra questions again.

 

"worms are born in your stomach, they grow there... And you get rid of them,

you kill them by taking in some medicine. Bugs grow in your hair, you get

rid of them by applying some hair oil... Just like Duryodhana who is having

life, who is grown out of you, they also have life and you could get rid of

them with out much thinking. Then my dear brother, why this blind affection

towards Duryodhana"

 

Duryodhana listens this conversation and scolds Vidura. Vidura gets

disgusted and takes out his sword and keeps it upside-down near the main

gate of Dhrusthra's palace and leaves the kingdom. Again he is shown in

Mahabharata only after the great war gets over. He comes back to take his

brother and sister-in-law into woods. After leaving the kingdom they leave

their body in a sacred fire...

 

The Sword that Vidura puts upside-down shows what kind of role Vidura has

been playing in KuruvaMsa... Only a self-appointed minister can do that

while renouncing his position. People who are appointed should not leave

their sword unless asked by the king himself. In this case, Dhrusthra

should have asked for Vidura's sword, but Dhrusthra didn't... With out

being asked, if one renounces his sword then it becomes treachery! Any

person committed such act would be treated as an enemy of the state and

punishable by death! In Vidura's case he was let go... Actually, Duryodhana

would not have left any such chance which would allow him to kill Vidura...

This tells us that Vidura is not an appointed minister.

 

Conclusively: Vidura is no-doubt a Jnani just like Bhishma and Drona. How

ever, Vidura renounced the Sword on his own will, because he is self

appointed... He is not obliged like Bhishma and Drona. Krishna stayed at

his place because he knows that Vidura is not bound to anybody. He is not

appointed like anybody else in the kingdom. A place where an ambassador

stays should be free of biased feelings. In that Royal game --- Krishna was

an ambassador, Vidura's is the right place for him to live in order to

complete his work.