Duryodhana - திருத்த வரலாறு

09:18, 12 பெப்ரவரி 2010 இல் Hariki

2010-02-12T09:18:19Z

14:54, 10 பெப்ரவரி 2010 இல் Hariki

2010-02-10T14:54:41Z

14:44, 10 பெப்ரவரி 2010 இல் Hariki

2010-02-10T14:44:59Z

09:47, 10 பெப்ரவரி 2010 இல் Dev

2010-02-10T09:47:11Z

Dev: "Duryodhana" காக்கப்பட்டது ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

2010-02-10T09:30:41Z

"Duryodhana" காக்கப்பட்டது ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

Dev: புதிய பக்கம்: = A race for the throne = ‘Truth has many shades,’ wrote poet Subramania Bharati in his Gnana Ratham (Chariot of Wisdom). Not only truth, but also Dharma has…

2010-02-10T09:29:56Z

புதிய பக்கம்: = A race for the throne = ‘Truth has many shades,’ wrote poet Subramania Bharati in his Gnana Ratham (Chariot of Wisdom). Not only truth, but also Dharma has…

புதிய பக்கம்

= A race for the throne =

‘Truth has many shades,’ wrote poet Subramania Bharati in his Gnana Ratham (Chariot of Wisdom). Not only truth, but also Dharma has many shades. It is not always possible to put one’s foot firmly down and declare that ‘This one is right and that is not,’ in every case. Of course, it is possible to do so in most cases. However, there are times when it is not possible to hold the balance so very accurately, weigh every point with precision, and arrive at a conclusion about what is right and what is not. The Mahabharata gives us hundreds of such moments when even the wisest is perplexed about the right and wrong of things. That is what ‘dilemma’ is all about. It is a situation when one is not able to pick and choose from the alternatives available to him or her. Pursuit of one course would be in contravention of one principle and the other course would equally have another lacuna, while both the courses could generally be accepted as good, right and proper. We read about the intervention of Lord Krishna at many such instances and pronouncing the verdict with a self-confident smile. This one took place much before the birth of Krishna.

The question of inheritance of kingdom is the central theme around which Mahabharata revolves. Dhrthrastra, the eldest of the family, could not be crowned initially because of the fact that he was born blind. Dhrthrastra could not reconcile to the fact that he could not become the king because of his handicap, though kingship was his rightful due, by virtue of his being the eldest of the family.

But the point is kingship did not pass on always to the eldest in the family as a matter of natural course. There are instances of younger brothers coming to the throne by popular acceptance and other reasons. Seniority among brothers was merely one of the options, a quick, easy and most preferred option, to choose the successor from the children of a king, who were equal in many respects. But it was not the only choice.

===== The public, the subjects, had their say in the matter. =====

Kings were really worried about the opinion of the general public. It appears that ‘public opinion’ enjoyed greater respect in the days of monarchy, looking at the way our democrats hold it and considering that we live in times of voting for one dictator or the other – at least in some places! We know that the kings initiated action, sent feelers and gathered information on the general body of opinion on important matters. If we think about it, Krishna was not the eldest of the family, after all! However, this is no place to discuss the circumstances that led to his becoming the king. That is for a later day.

Dhrthrastra, however, did not think so. Though he does not say so openly, Vyasa points to his desire for the crown in hundreds of instances. Let’s say that it was his desire, if not greed. The crown went to Pandu because of Dhrthrastra’s handicap. Technically speaking, Pandu was a caretaker King. But the role that Pandu played was not restricted to that. He expanded the kingdom and contributed to its growth in size and prosperity. People respected him and loved him for that.

The river of History is full of eddies and tides. Circumstances soon led to a situation when Pandu decided to step down from the throne and the question of kingship rose again. Dhrthrastra was the only choice and the crown fell on his laps. Observe that it did not go to Vidura, who was a better choice in all respects – wisdom, valour, administrative ability et al – just because he was born to a maidservant, though to the same father. And also observe that the thought of inheritance of the throne – or the denial of it – had never troubled him.

If Pandu was a caretaker king when he assumed office, Dhrthrastra was in that position after Pandu stepped down from the throne. Pandu was a king who ruled Hastinapur. When the question of choosing the successor, the question of seniority of his children had also to be taken into consideration! Pandu did not merely maintain the kingdom. He had contributed to its growth and had expanded its territory.

And that was why Dhrtharashtra was greatly troubled at heart when the news that Kunti had conceived for the first time, reached him. He was under the impression that Pandu would never beget children, because of the curse on him, and that path would be clear for his children to reach the throne. Gandhari was in fact pregnant too, at that time. But that was strangely a very long and extended pregnancy, for about two years!

It so happened that Kunti delivered the eldest child of the family. Fate had it is say in the matter that Gandhari, eldest of the queens, in whose care was the kingdom, did not beget the first child – though she conceived earlier than Kunti.

The race for begetting the leader of the race thus ended up in a fiasco, at least as far as Dhrtharashtra and Gandhari was concerned. The question that tantalised them now was that of inheritance of the throne. That troubled Gandhari for a short time. Dhrtharashtra could not accept that situation. Remember. The crown belonged to him when the dice was rolled and also when the war was sanctioned.

Right can right only if the path that is chosen leads to what is right.

= On friendship =

Speaking of friendship, one is always reminded of the splendid example of Duryodhana and Karna. People even go the extent of describing it as the most ideal friendship. But the warmth of this ‘friendship’ seems more to be a Tamil contribution. The very popular incident that describes the ‘எடுக்கவோ கோக்கவோ’ incident ‘shall I pick up or shall is re-string these pearls’ is found in the Bharata Venba and Villi Bharatam in Tamil and not in Vyasa’s original. The ‘friendship’ that Vyasa depicts is of a complex nature. It was born with an ulterior motive; it was nurtured with a motive; it grew with a motive; but nonetheless the relations between the two contain sparkling examples of friendship of the ‘most excellent’ (for want of a better phrase!) nature.

If one examines the incidents that involved these two more closely, it is Duryodhana who comes up as ‘better of the two’, many times. I would like to lay emphasis on the phrase ‘many times’. I do not mean ‘always’. That Karna was fiercely loyal is a fact that cannot be denied. But it cannot also be denied that that loyalty was not without shortfalls. We will take the incidents involving the two and measure them against the indisputable yardstick of Thirukkural, one by one.

The students of the Acharya Drona had assembled that day for a display of the skills they had acquired, both Kauravas and Pandavas. It has to be remembered that the name Kaurava is derived from the name of their ancestor Kuru and therefore the five also fall under the same name ‘Kaurava’. However, it is a matter of distinction that they are known by their father’s name, Pandu. It is like saying though all the four brothers can be called ‘Raghava’, only Rama is more known by that name.

We know what happened that day. Arjuna had just completed his firework of a display and made everyone in the arena go gaga about him. Karna appeared at the gate and challenged Arjuna. He challenged him for ‘dvandva yuddham’ more commonly known as a duel in English. Two different styles of battle are described in Mahabharata namely, ‘dvandva’ and the ‘sankula’ styles. ‘Dvandva’ is the battle between the hierarchically equals. A king fights only with another king. The chariot-warrior with the chariot-warrior, a horseman with another and so on. The ‘sankula’ style is normally not adopted except in the case of emergencies – like a king having to fight a gang of thieves, etc. But what is going on is a display of skills and there is no emergency which called for the ‘sankula’ style to be adopted. And therefore, Kripa asked for his status in the society. There is no other significance to this question as people imagine and attribute to this incident.

‘Very well. You want to fight a duel with Arjuna. He is a prince. He is the son of Kunti and is therefore known as Kaunteya. Who are you? You are unknown to us. What is your status in society? What is your father and who is he? A duel is fought only between equals and therefore the details are to be made public. Give me the particulars.’

Now, Karna was doubtless an excellent archer. But his credentials need to be checked and verified because he was not known to the royalty until then. What he desired was a ‘dvandva yuddha’ and verification of social status, either of the person in question directly or that of his father was a necessary precondition. Karna was crestfallen. What he wanted was public recognition by establishing his supremacy over Arjuna. What stood in the way of his goal was the question of hierarchy. (It however has to be remembered that though Karna was a great archer, he was defeated in many later scuffles, duels and battles by Arjuna whereas there is not a single instance when Arjuna was defeated by Karna.)

Apart from not getting the recognition that he thirsted for, Karna had now to stand with his head bent low for no fault of his, since he did not know the family to which he belonged, he did not know that he was born to the same Kunti. A pitiable condition indeed for a person like Karna.

On the other side, Duryodhana considered only Arjuna and Bhima as formidable warriors. He could match – and even outdo – the skills of Bhima with the mace. But he needed an archer who could handle this Arjuna. He spotted his friend there, at that moment. He rushed to his rescue and quickly argued and obtained the approval of elders to make Karna the king of Anga, at the very same spot. The question of hierarchy was wiped out in one simple stroke. But then, it was too late to continue that day and other diversions did not make the duel between Arjuna and Karna. Karna was overcome by feelings of gratitude at this unmatched gesture. One needed the strength of the other. One needed the other to complement shortfalls and supplement strong points. But that is what friendship is all about.
<blockquote>
செயற்கு அரிய யாவுள நட்பின் அதுபோல் <br>வினைக்கு அரிய யாவுள காப்பு
</blockquote>
What is rarer to get than friendship and a stronger shield against a foe?It is not only a shield against the foe. ‘வினைக்கு அரிய யாவுள காப்பு ?,’ includes all kinds of endeavours a person undertakes. Friendship is the bond that shields, that strengthens, that protects and that vitalises.

Duryodhana settled the score of hierarchy much later, when Dharmaputra stood against him in the Kurukshetra. ‘If a duel is fought between equals,’ he chuckled, on the first day of the war, just before the war started, ‘do tell me who is the king that has come in war against me, and which country is that he rules over!’ Only, Karna was not there by his side on that day to listen to the way his friend avenged for the insult that he suffered on the first day of their friendship.

<br>Hari Krishnan

<br>

@@ வரிசை 27: / வரிசை 27: @@
 = On friendship  =
 Both Ramayana and Mahabaratha have had their powerful influence in the life of our people from ancient times as can be seen from our literature of a distant past. The Tamil anthology “புறநானூறு”, which belongs to roughly 200 BC, contains references to the Ramayana and Mahabaratha. Every Indian language has its own version of these two epics and in each version we see something very unique, a new dimension and a new shade added to the original.
 The friendship and trust between Duryodhana and Karna, though having its origins in the Mahabharata of Vyasa, takes a newer dimension in the ancient Tamil work,பாரத வெண்பா. <br>
@@ வரிசை 35: / வரிசை 35: @@
 If one examines the incidents that involved these two more closely, it is Duryodhana who comes up as ‘better of the two’, many times. I would like to lay emphasis on the phrase ‘many times’. I do not mean ‘always’. That Karna was fiercely loyal is a fact that cannot be denied. But it cannot also be denied that that loyalty was not without shortfalls. We will take the incidents involving the two and measure them against the indisputable yardstick of Thirukkural, one by one.
-The students of the Acharya Drona had assembled that day for a display of the skills they had acquired, both Kauravas and Pandavas. It has to be remembered that the name Kaurava is derived from the name of their ancestor Kuru and therefore the five also fall under the same name ‘Kaurava’. However, it is a matter of distinction that they are known by their father’s name, Pandu. It is like saying though all the four brothers can be called ‘Raghava’, only Rama is more known by that name.
+The students of Acharya Drona had assembled that day for a display of the skills they had acquired, both Kauravas and Pandavas. It has to be remembered that the name Kaurava is derived from the name of their ancestor Kuru and therefore the five also fall under the same name ‘Kaurava’. However, it is a matter of distinction that they are known by their father’s name, Pandu. It is like saying though all the four brothers can be called ‘Raghava’, only Rama is more known by that name.
 We know what happened that day. Arjuna had just completed his firework of a display and made everyone in the arena go gaga about him. Karna appeared at the gate and challenged Arjuna. He challenged him for ‘dvandva yuddham’ more commonly known as a duel in English. Two different styles of battle are described in Mahabharata namely, ‘dvandva’ and the ‘sankula’ styles. ‘Dvandva’ is the battle between the hierarchically equals. A king fights only with another king. The chariot-warrior with the chariot-warrior, a horseman with another and so on. The ‘sankula’ style is normally not adopted except in the case of emergencies – like a king having to fight a gang of thieves, etc. But what is going on is a display of skills and there is no emergency which called for the ‘sankula’ style to be adopted. And therefore, Kripa asked for his status in the society. There is no other significance to this question as people imagine and attribute to this incident.

@@ வரிசை 1: / வரிசை 1: @@
-= A race for the throne =
+= A race for the throne  =
 ‘Truth has many shades,’ wrote poet Subramania Bharati in his Gnana Ratham (Chariot of Wisdom). Not only truth, but also Dharma has many shades. It is not always possible to put one’s foot firmly down and declare that ‘This one is right and that is not,’ in every case. Of course, it is possible to do so in most cases. However, there are times when it is not possible to hold the balance so very accurately, weigh every point with precision, and arrive at a conclusion about what is right and what is not. The Mahabharata gives us hundreds of such moments when even the wisest is perplexed about the right and wrong of things. That is what ‘dilemma’ is all about. It is a situation when one is not able to pick and choose from the alternatives available to him or her. Pursuit of one course would be in contravention of one principle and the other course would equally have another lacuna, while both the courses could generally be accepted as good, right and proper. We read about the intervention of Lord Krishna at many such instances and pronouncing the verdict with a self-confident smile. This one took place much before the birth of Krishna.
 The question of inheritance of kingdom is the central theme around which Mahabharata revolves. Dhrthrastra, the eldest of the family, could not be crowned initially because of the fact that he was born blind. Dhrthrastra could not reconcile to the fact that he could not become the king because of his handicap, though kingship was his rightful due, by virtue of his being the eldest of the family.
 But the point is kingship did not pass on always to the eldest in the family as a matter of natural course. There are instances of younger brothers coming to the throne by popular acceptance and other reasons. Seniority among brothers was merely one of the options, a quick, easy and most preferred option, to choose the successor from the children of a king, who were equal in many respects. But it was not the only choice.
-===== The public, the subjects, had their say in the matter.  =====
+= The public, the subjects, had their say in the matter.  =
 Kings were really worried about the opinion of the general public. It appears that ‘public opinion’ enjoyed greater respect in the days of monarchy, looking at the way our democrats hold it and considering that we live in times of voting for one dictator or the other – at least in some places! We know that the kings initiated action, sent feelers and gathered information on the general body of opinion on important matters. If we think about it, Krishna was not the eldest of the family, after all! However, this is no place to discuss the circumstances that led to his becoming the king. That is for a later day.
@@ வரிசை 23: / வரிசை 23: @@
 The race for begetting the leader of the race thus ended up in a fiasco, at least as far as Dhrtharashtra and Gandhari was concerned. The question that tantalised them now was that of inheritance of the throne. That troubled Gandhari for a short time. Dhrtharashtra could not accept that situation. Remember. The crown belonged to him when the dice was rolled and also when the war was sanctioned.
 Right can be right only if the path that is chosen leads to what is right.
 = On friendship  =
@@ வரிசை 53: / வரிசை 53: @@
 <br>Hari Krishnan
 <br>

@@ வரிசை 9: / வரிசை 9: @@
 ===== The public, the subjects, had their say in the matter.  =====
 Kings were really worried about the opinion of the general public. It appears that ‘public opinion’ enjoyed greater respect in the days of monarchy, looking at the way our democrats hold it and considering that we live in times of voting for one dictator or the other – at least in some places! We know that the kings initiated action, sent feelers and gathered information on the general body of opinion on important matters. If we think about it, Krishna was not the eldest of the family, after all! However, this is no place to discuss the circumstances that led to his becoming the king. That is for a later day.
 Dhrthrastra, however, did not think so. Though he does not say so openly, Vyasa points to his desire for the crown in hundreds of instances. Let’s say that it was his desire, if not greed. The crown went to Pandu because of Dhrthrastra’s handicap. Technically speaking, Pandu was a caretaker King. But the role that Pandu played was not restricted to that. He expanded the kingdom and contributed to its growth in size and prosperity. People respected him and loved him for that.
@@ வரிசை 19: / வரிசை 19: @@
 And that was why Dhrtharashtra was greatly troubled at heart when the news that Kunti had conceived for the first time, reached him. He was under the impression that Pandu would never beget children, because of the curse on him, and that path would be clear for his children to reach the throne. Gandhari was in fact pregnant too, at that time. But that was strangely a very long and extended pregnancy, for about two years!
 It so happened that Kunti delivered the eldest child of the family. Fate had it is say in the matter that Gandhari, eldest of the queens, in whose care was the kingdom, did not beget the first child – though she conceived earlier than Kunti.
 The race for begetting the leader of the race thus ended up in a fiasco, at least as far as Dhrtharashtra and Gandhari was concerned. The question that tantalised them now was that of inheritance of the throne. That troubled Gandhari for a short time. Dhrtharashtra could not accept that situation. Remember. The crown belonged to him when the dice was rolled and also when the war was sanctioned.
-Right can right only if the path that is chosen leads to what is right.
+Right can be right only if the path that is chosen leads to what is right.
 = On friendship  =

@@ வரிசை 25: / வரிசை 25: @@
 Right can right only if the path that is chosen leads to what is right.
-= On friendship =
+= On friendship  =
-Speaking of friendship, one is always reminded of the splendid example of Duryodhana and Karna. People even go the extent of describing it as the most ideal friendship. But the warmth of this ‘friendship’ seems more to be a Tamil contribution. The very popular incident that describes the ‘எடுக்கவோ கோக்கவோ’ incident ‘shall I pick up or shall is re-string these pearls’ is found in the Bharata Venba and Villi Bharatam in Tamil and not in Vyasa’s original. The ‘friendship’ that Vyasa depicts is of a complex nature. It was born with an ulterior motive; it was nurtured with a motive; it grew with a motive; but nonetheless the relations between the two contain sparkling examples of friendship of the ‘most excellent’ (for want of a better phrase!) nature.
+Both Ramayana and Mahabaratha have had their powerful influence in the life of our people from ancient times as can be seen from our literature of a distant past. The Tamil anthology “புறநானூறு”, which belongs to roughly 200 BC, contains references to the Ramayana and Mahabaratha. Every Indian language has its own version of these two epics and in each version we see something very unique, a new dimension and a new shade added to the original.
 If one examines the incidents that involved these two more closely, it is Duryodhana who comes up as ‘better of the two’, many times. I would like to lay emphasis on the phrase ‘many times’. I do not mean ‘always’. That Karna was fiercely loyal is a fact that cannot be denied. But it cannot also be denied that that loyalty was not without shortfalls. We will take the incidents involving the two and measure them against the indisputable yardstick of Thirukkural, one by one.
@@ வரிசை 37: / வரிசை 41: @@
 ‘Very well. You want to fight a duel with Arjuna. He is a prince. He is the son of Kunti and is therefore known as Kaunteya. Who are you? You are unknown to us. What is your status in society? What is your father and who is he? A duel is fought only between equals and therefore the details are to be made public. Give me the particulars.’
 Now, Karna was doubtless an excellent archer. But his credentials need to be checked and verified because he was not known to the royalty until then. What he desired was a ‘dvandva yuddha’ and verification of social status, either of the person in question directly or that of his father was a necessary precondition. Karna was crestfallen. What he wanted was public recognition by establishing his supremacy over Arjuna. What stood in the way of his goal was the question of hierarchy. (It however has to be remembered that though Karna was a great archer, he was defeated in many later scuffles, duels and battles by Arjuna whereas there is not a single instance when Arjuna was defeated by Karna.)
 Apart from not getting the recognition that he thirsted for, Karna had now to stand with his head bent low for no fault of his, since he did not know the family to which he belonged, he did not know that he was born to the same Kunti. A pitiable condition indeed for a person like Karna.
 On the other side, Duryodhana considered only Arjuna and Bhima as formidable warriors. He could match – and even outdo – the skills of Bhima with the mace. But he needed an archer who could handle this Arjuna. He spotted his friend there, at that moment. He rushed to his rescue and quickly argued and obtained the approval of elders to make Karna the king of Anga, at the very same spot. The question of hierarchy was wiped out in one simple stroke. But then, it was too late to continue that day and other diversions did not make the duel between Arjuna and Karna. Karna was overcome by feelings of gratitude at this unmatched gesture. One needed the strength of the other. One needed the other to complement shortfalls and supplement strong points. But that is what friendship is all about.
-<blockquote>
+<blockquote>செயற்கு அரிய யாவுள நட்பின் அதுபோல் <br>வினைக்கு அரிய யாவுள காப்பு </blockquote>
-செயற்கு அரிய யாவுள நட்பின் அதுபோல் <br>வினைக்கு அரிய யாவுள காப்பு
+What is rarer to get than friendship and a stronger shield against a foe?It is not only a shield against the foe. ‘வினைக்கு அரிய யாவுள காப்பு&nbsp;?,’ includes all kinds of endeavours a person undertakes. Friendship is the bond that shields, that strengthens, that protects and that vitalises.
 </blockquote>
 What is rarer to get than friendship and a stronger shield against a foe?It is not only a shield against the foe. ‘வினைக்கு அரிய யாவுள காப்பு ?,’ includes all kinds of endeavours a person undertakes. Friendship is the bond that shields, that strengthens, that protects and that vitalises.
 Duryodhana settled the score of hierarchy much later, when Dharmaputra stood against him in the Kurukshetra. ‘If a duel is fought between equals,’ he chuckled, on the first day of the war, just before the war started, ‘do tell me who is the king that has come in war against me, and which country is that he rules over!’ Only, Karna was not there by his side on that day to listen to the way his friend avenged for the insult that he suffered on the first day of their friendship.
 <br>Hari Krishnan
 <br>