Why is it that Duryodhana should deserve a throne in heaven when four of the Pandavas and Draupadi are made to serve time in hell?
It is impossible to label Duryodhana as anything but wicked after the many dishonorable and shameful acts he suffered on the sons of Pandu. While he may have followed certain aspects of his personal Dharma, he committed many Adharmatic acts and violated general Dharmas of man such as his violation of Draupadi or his abundance of anger and violence. For no other reason but jealously, hatred, and spite (all Adharmatic traits), Duryodhana subjugated the Pandavas to lives of full of misery and poverty they neither deserved nor need suffered. True, Duryodhana was not all evil as no man can be classified as total evil or total good, but surely the war he brought about resulting in the death of thousands upon thousands of men due to his unwillingness to uphold the dastardly deal he created merits a large stint in hell. So why should he be allowed a throne in heaven when the Pandavas need spend time in hell in atonement for the small amount of sins they committed during their time on earth?
Taking into account that Duryodhana's death predated the Pandavas at least thirty-six years, perhaps he served most of that time in hell as atonement for his many crimes against the Pandavas (his own kin) and in retribution for his Dharma. In contrast, the Pandavas while being close to perfection in their lives and Dharmas still committed sins from time to time for which they too deserved a time in hell. According to the Mahabharata, Yudhisthira ascended into heaven shortly after Bhima fell. This being said, the Mahabharata does not list an amount of time given from the falling of Bhima to Yudhisthira's visit into hell. We can therefore ascertain that the time the Pandavas and Draupadi spent in hell to be short-lived. Perhaps then, the Pandavas spent an acceptable time in hell atoning for their transgressions. My only objection to this theory is that while Duryodhana may have spent thirty-six years in hell, I find this to be too short a sentence for one who committed such evil.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Excellent posting, Chase. Boy, you really didn't sympathize with Duryodhana at all, did you? I feel that he is perhaps, the most human of the characters in the Mahabharata, because he has no pretenstions of being divine (like the Pandavas) Sure he does some horrible things and makes some terrible decisions to fulfill his greed and desires, but he is also a good king, a good brother, and a good husband (I know we don't see these aspects of him in the text we are using.) In addition, he is actually a god son to Gandhari, so much so that she wishes to bestow the boon of invincibility on him, but Krishna prevents it through his treachery. This is a fascinating myth.
Gandhari knows that she has gained immense spiritual power in her eyes from maintaining such a strict vow, so she decides to tranfer that power to Duryodhana and asks him to come to her bed chamber in the nude so that she can look upon him with this power which will make him invincible.
The next morning, after his purifying bath as Duryodhana walks to her chamber absolutely nude, Kirhsna meets him (of course he knows Gandhari's intention) and mocks him for appearing in the nude before his mother. He advices him to wear a loin cloth to cover at least his private parts. Duryodhana is taken in by Krishna's words and puts on the loin cloth. As he enters Gandhari's chamber, she takes off her veil and looks at him. Her gaze makes all parts that are bare invincible. But his loins and groin remain vulnerable. that is why, at the end, Krishna urges Bhima to strik him in the upper thighs, because he knows that is the only place where he can be mortally hurt.
Doesn't this remind you of Achilles and his heel?
Post a Comment