Question-30 What was the significance of Maan Draupadi vastra haran

[Guest guest]

HARE KRISHNA ,HARE RAMA

 

What was the significance of Maan Draupadi Vasta haran in

Mahabharatha. was it necessary for the war . or why it was planned by

the Lord Sri Krishna

 

could you please share your views

 

HARE KRISHNA ,HARE KRISHNA ,KRISHNA KRISHNA ,HARE HARE ,HARE

RAMA ,HARE RAMA ,RAMA RAMA ,HARE HARE

[Guest guest]

Jituji Namaskarams ,

Maa Droupadi`s vivasthrikaran was not engineered by Lord Krishna but the Lord

Krishna wanted to show the world

1)To what mean extent Kouravas specially the evil four (dushta chathustay)

would go to insult and enslave Pandavas.Undressing a Lady in open court is the

limit of Adharma ,Akshathriya (unlike royal behaviour) and immoral.

and

2)To teach us that any amount of ego of a devotee delays Divine intervension

and help. As long as Maa Droupadi was holding her saree pressing it against her

chest while shouting for help from Lord Krishna, help did not arrive. Maa

Droupadi was asking for help but her holding the saree betrays her attempt to

protect herself with her physical power..

The moment she lifted both hands as a gesture of helplessness ,loss of ego and

total surrender to Lord , help arrived instantaneously

I hope seniors in the group can throw more light,

SRIMANNAARAAYANA

ijswamy

 

 

 

jitendra kumar <jtin_ja wrote:

HARE KRISHNA ,HARE RAMA

 

What was the significance of Maan Draupadi Vasta haran in

Mahabharatha. was it necessary for the war . or why it was planned by

the Lord Sri Krishna

 

could you please share your views

 

HARE KRISHNA ,HARE KRISHNA ,KRISHNA KRISHNA ,HARE HARE ,HARE

RAMA ,HARE RAMA ,RAMA RAMA ,HARE HARE

 

 

 

 

 

 

~SWAMY

http://gjnanaswarup.spaces.live.com/blog/

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

HARE KRISHNA ,HARE RAMA

 

 

--- > Maa Droupadi`s vivasthrikaran was not engineered by Lord

Krishna but the Lord Krishna wanted to show the world

> 1)To what mean extent Kouravas specially the evil four (dushta

chathustay) would go to insult and enslave Pandavas.Undressing a Lady

in open court is the limit of Adharma ,Akshathriya (unlike royal

behaviour) and immoral.

> and

 

Thanks Sir Ji

 

also i request to everybody to share views for our progress towards

the path of the truth

 

HARE KRISHNA ,HARE KRISHNA ,KRISHNA KRISHNA ,HARE HARE ,HARE

RAMA ,HARE RAMA , RAMA RAMA ,HARE HARE

[Guest guest]

, " J.SWAMY IRAGAVARAPU "

<jiragavarapu wrote:

>

> Jituji Namaskarams ,

> Maa Droupadi`s vivasthrikaran was not engineered by Lord Krishna

 

Thats a good answer Swamiji.

 

From a slightly materialist point of view, the person responsible may

have been Draupadi herself(though sub-conciously). If you remember,

she was no ordinary woman, but a Shakti born of fire, to destroy the

Kauravs.

 

The Pandavs had gotten stuck in a Tamasic thinking " These people are

our cousins, we should forgive them " . They had to be shown to what

limits the Kauravs could fall to, & why we can never do deals with

Dharma. This single incident was the most important for war.

 

Of course, Draupadi must have had some very bad karma to suffer this.

She survived complete humilation only due to grace of Krishna, which

shows even the worst Karma can be modified by Gods grace(though it

also shows that bad karma cannot be completely removed, we have to

suffer somewhat).

 

love

Shantnu

[Guest guest]

HARE KRISHNA ,HARE RAMA

 

> From a slightly materialist point of view, the person responsible may

 

Thanks Sir Ji

 

one can not completely avoid bad karmas

 

HARE KRISHNA ,HARE KRISHNA ,KRISHNA KRISHNA ,HARE HARE , HARE

RAMA ,HARE RAMA ,RAMA RAMA ,HARE HARE

[Guest guest]

I have a doubt. The great war, Mahabharata yudh, is portrayed as war between

Dharma and Adharma. However, it is set in the background of an internecine war

between two families, claiming right over Hastinapura. Gauravas claim to rule,

by virtue of their right to being the sons of the ruling King, Dhridhrashtra,

the elder of the two brothers. Pandavas claim the right being the legal heirs of

Pandu, who was the king for some time, ahead of his elder brother,

Dhrudhrashtra, who was considered unfit to rule, due to his blindness. The

elders, as a matter of fact, did give a solution by vivisecting the kingdom.

While Gauravas continued to rule Hastinapura, the Pandavas were given

Indraprastha. Yudhistra lost the latter in the gamble. So goes the stroy.

 

Whatever be the merits of either of their claims, it remains as a dispute

between two warring clans over property and the right to rule over the land. My

doubt is at what stage does this struggle become a struggle for dharma with the

forces of adharma. In other words, why do we call Kauravas as representing the

adharma, when as the Kshatriyas they foght for their to rule the kingdom which

their father and the forefathers were ruling? Were they not doing the same

thing, which Lord Krishna coaxed Arjuna to do, with an elaborate reasoning. They

were after all fighting as warriors are expected to do?

 

Kindly clarify.

 

Hari Om Tat Sat

 

ulaganathan p

 

shanracer <no_reply > wrote:

, " J.SWAMY IRAGAVARAPU "

 

Thats a good answer Swamiji.

[Guest guest]

, ulaganathan p <apunathan wrote:

>

> I have a doubt. The great war, Mahabharata yudh, is portrayed as war

 

Thats a great question ulaganathanji. I'll have to meditate on this!

 

love

Shantnu

[Guest guest]

Ulaganathanji Namaskarams. Senior and better informed Shantnuji promised to

meditate on your question as how a family dispute for territory becomes a

Dharmic dispute.

Awaiting such authoritative answers permit me to submit my version.

From the beginning it was Dharmic issue.

Udhishtir was enticed to play dice by Kauravs but

1)Udhistir followed the Dharma and allowed the younger cousin Duryodhan to

begin the play. Instead Duryyodhan passed on the responsibility to Shakuni very

senior in age to both challengers thus violating the principle of younger one

getting the first chance. Shakuni`s play was tricky ,not fair. In fact

throughout the game Yudhistir NEVER HANDLED DICE.

It was a one man`s deceitful show.

2)Throught Mahabharat every time dice was played Shakuni began the game and

ended it after winning everything including the noble royal lady Droupadi.

3)From the time Kauravs and Pandavs started learning archery ,there was

rivalry between Arjun and Duryodhan.

4)Kauravs planned to kill Pandavs deceitfully in Varanavrat much earlier.

5)Lord Krishna tried to settle the dispute by mediating for just FIVE VILLAGES

for five brothers.

6)Even this was rejected by Duryodhan who insisted that even an area occupied

by the thin end of a sharp needle would not be conceded to Pandavas.

7)Insult to Maa Droupadi was the most provocative act.

So sir I believe it was a DHARMIC war.

Expecting better from Shantnuji and others

 

OHM NAMO NAARAAYANAAYA

ijswamy

 

 

ulaganathan p <apunathan wrote:

I have a doubt. The great war, Mahabharata yudh, is portrayed as war

between Dharma and Adharma. However, it is set in the

[Guest guest]

HARE KRISHNA ,HARE RAMA

 

 

My doubt is at what stage does this struggle become a struggle for

dharma with the forces of adharma. In other words, why do we call

Kauravas as representing the adharma, when as the Kshatriyas they

foght for their to rule the kingdom which their father and the

forefathers were ruling? Were they not doing the same thing, which

Lord Krishna coaxed Arjuna to do, with an elaborate reasoning. They

were after all fighting as warriors are expected to do?

 

 

Thanks for the great question raised by you Sir Ji

 

1. Gandhar Naresh Sakuni was the charecter to introduce the Adharma

for his own aim ie the aim to destroy the Kingdom hastinapur just

for the sake of His sister Maan Gandhari . why Sakuni had problems

when Maan Gandhari had herself choosen King Dhritrastra as the

husband King of the Hastinapur . She tied cloths on her eyes . it

was her decision. Great Bhisham Pitameh had not forced Maan Gandhari

to marry with the Dhritrasta . now Sakuni understood that Her Sister

is fool and she is not obeying her . He wanted that Maan Gandhari

should marry with His choice . even though if He was right for that

purpose than He should have fought with Bhisham Pitameh as a warrior

that is DHARMA . but he adopted the path of Adharma and He started

conspiracies Poision to Bhim , varanvrat ,..............

 

 

a child is giving poision to a child and that is the conspiracy of a

great person who was 35 years old ( though i am not sure but it

looks like 35-40 )and a king of Gandhar . it is the begining of

Adharma . He had given birth to Adharma .How can a child give

poision ot another child without the support of elders and that was

Gandhar Naresh Sakuni

 

Varnavrat conspiracy ...

 

THE PURPOSE OF A KSHTRIYA IS TO FIGHT FACE TO FACE IN A WAR AND NOT

LIKE YOU ARE MAKING A HOUSE OF DEATH AND YOU ARE INVITING PANDAVAS

TO DIE . IT IS NOT DHARMA AT ANY COST. AND here adharma was brough

up by Gandhar Naresh Sakuni . Here Dhritrastra was not knowing it is

ok

 

 

3. Partition --- but it was never ok that you are giving KHANDEHAR

to Pandavas a very small portion while they were also having same

right . half half should be divided constructed and nonconstructed

portion both . Here Dhritrasta Putra moh came into picture . As a

king he had not taken right decision .

 

4. Than King Dhritrastra started Adharma . He never took any

decision like a King .He always took decisions like He is a father .

If He was a father than He should live like a normal praja and

should not avail the facilities of a king . the king is having the

property of whole praja just because that King will do justice for

the praja . it is understood that King is capable to solve the

problems of praja . How can a king solve the problems of a praja

when His intellect is blind for praja and could see only to His

Putra Yuvraj Duryodhan

 

5. Dwat Krina was not so bad . it was the Dharma of a Kshatriya .

 

what happened in that case ... again it was the conspiracy of

Gandhar Naresh Sakuni .

Sakuni was from Gandhar and He had no right to play on behalf of

Duryodhan . it was completely adharma . it is like my friend is

giving my examination .

Secondlay it was known that all the limits were crossed in the dwat

Krina in Hastinapur than King Dhritrastra should invite a war

immediately if He thought that Duryodhan is not agree .now He

ordered Yudhisthir for dwat krina again with the stake of 12 yeas

exile and one year unrecognised exile .. if recognised than same

thing again . Here it was known that Sakuni was playing who was from

Gandhar he had no right to put this condition of 12 yeas......... on

behalf of Duryodhana . IT WAS THE GREATEST ADHARMA HERE ADHARMA

REACHED ON ITS PEAK .....

 

 

 

Question is How Gandhar Naresh Sakuni himself participated in war

when He was conspiracy maker . why he could not make any conspiracy

to avoid to participate in the war to make further

conspiracies .......... please share your

views...........................................

 

HARE KRISHNA ,HARE KRISHNA ,KRISHNA KRISHNA ,HARE HARE ,HARE

RAMA ,HARE RAMA ,RAMA RAMA ,HARE HARE

[Guest guest]

, " jitendra kumar " <jtin_ja wrote:

 

> My doubt is at what stage does this struggle become a struggle for

> dharma with the forces of adharma. In other words, why do we call

 

Jitendarji & Swamiji have given very good answers, there is nothing to

add.

 

Ever since they were children, the Kauravs tried to harm or kill the

Pandavs. The Pandavs forgave them as brothers, but this only made the

Kauravs bolder.

 

In beginning this was just a personal fight. However, once they became

kings, this started affecting the ordinary people, as every action of

a King affects the people. More ever, the King was at that time a

moral inspiration for the people, & for the king to go round stripping

his own sister-in-law......

 

And the Pandavs tried their best to negotitate, but this made the

Kauravs think they were cowards, so they became even more cruel...

 

Somebody told me the story of Mahabharat is the story of Kaliyug- the

same events repeat over & over again. Always there is a Shakuni

planning & plotting. There is a Duryodhan, a strong egotist who always

wants more. There is a Yudhistra, who tries to be nice to the point of

foolishness. There are elders like Bhisham & Dron, who are happy to

claim to be working for Dharma, yet when it is attacked(as when

Draupadi was) they remain quiet. Finally, there is always Krishna, the

Guru(inner or outer), who remains silent in the background, nudging

here & there, but never forcing anyone to make any choice......

 

love

Shantnu

[Guest guest]

No, Sir, it was all along war between Dharma and Adharma as most

epics are. True, Kauravas gave a portion of the kingdom to Pandavas

but Kauravas never allowed it to settle that way. They wanted to take

away the part given to Pandavas - greed so heinous: to take away or

covet others possession. This is adharma. Further, even more adharmic

activity is to use devious and deceitful means to gain others

property, they cheated by trickery the game of dice, broke the rules

of the game, another adharma, and so on.

 

Lord Krishna's role is also a great saga, He took the mundane to

sublime. Most revolutionary ideology, more revolutionary than even

the modern leftist thinkers, is advocated by Him in the Gita:He moved

Arjuna to raise above the consideration of identity based on name,

fame, relationships, possessions and all such social consideration of

life in all times (in Chapter2 in particular) and view life in an

exalted level of consciousness. What is more, He advocated equality

of all beings ( not just human beings as modern Leftist who can go

only thus far ), if we really take seriously this fact of reality

that all beings - people, plants, animals, nature including physical -

we would not have seen such environmental degradation of to day. The

exposition of what is Dharma and what is Adharma with such abundant

clarity is unparallelled in human history.

 

Bhagavdgita is the song of the Lord, Mahabharata is the song of Life,

the stuff with which the mundane life and the Divine is made off is

etched so eloquently there.

 

Regards,

 

M.S.Thimmappa.

 

, ulaganathan p <apunathan wrote:

>

> I have a doubt. The great war, Mahabharata yudh, is portrayed as

>war between Dharma and Adharma. However, it is set in the background