Why did Krishna not save the Pandavas when they played dice with Duryadhana & Shakuni

Why did Krishna not save the Pandavas when they played dice with Duryadhana & Shakuni

Wonderful explanation by Krishna :


From his childhood, Uddhava had been with Krishna, charioting him and serving him in many ways. He never asked for any wish or boon from Sri Krishna. When Krishna was at the verge of completing His Avatar, he called Uddhava and said, "Dear Uddhava, in this avatar of mine, many people have asked and received boons from me; but you never asked me anything. Why don’t you ask something now ? I will give you. Let me complete this avatar with the satisfaction of doing something good for you also".


Even though Uddhava did not ask anything for himself, he had been observing Krishna from his childhood. He had always wondered about the apparent disconnect between Krishna’s teachings and actions, and wanted to understand the reasons for the same.




He asked Krishna, "Lord, you taught us to live in one way, but you lived in a different way. In the drama of Mahabharat, in the role you played, in your actions, I did not understand many things. I am curious to understand the reasons for your actions. Would you fulfil my desire to know?"


Krishna said, "Uddhava, what I told Arjuna during the war of Kurukshetra was Bhagavad Gita. Today, my responses to you would be known as 'Uddhava Gita’. That is why I gave this opportunity to you. Please ask without hesitation."


Uddhava starts asking : –


"Krishna, first tell me who is a real friend ?" Krishna says, ‘The real friend is one who comes to the help of his friend in need even without being called’.


Uddhava : "Krishna, you were a dear friend of the Pandavas. They trusted you fully as Apadhbhandava (protector from all difficulties). Krishna, you not only know what is happening, but you know what is going to happen. You are a great gyani."


Just now you gave the definition of a true, close friend. Then why did you not act as per that definition. ? ! ?


- Why did you not stop Dharmaraj (Yudhishtra) from playing the gambling game ?


- Ok, you did not do it; why did you not turn the luck in favour of Dharmaraj, by which you would have ensured that dharma wins. You did not do that also.


- You could have at least saved Dharmaraj by stopping the game after he lost his wealth, country and himself.


- You could have released him from the punishment for gambling. Or, you could have entered the hall when he started betting his brothers. You did not do that either.


- At least when Duryodhana tempted Dharmaraj by offering to return everything lost if he betted Draupadi (who always brought good fortune to Pandavas), you could have intervened and with your divine power you could have made the dices roll in a way that is favorable to Dharmaraj. Instead, you intervened only when Draupadi almost lost her modesty and now you claim that you gave clothes and saved Draupadi’s modesty; how can you even claim this - after her being dragged into the hall by a man and disrobed in front of so many people, what modesty is left for a woman ? What have you saved ?


If
You help - Only when a person at the time of crisis, can you be called ‘Apadhbandhava’. If you did not help in the time of crisis, what is the use ? Is it Dharma ?"


As Uddhava posed these questions, tears started rolling from his eyes. These are not the questions of Uddhava alone. All of us who have read Mahabharata have these questions. On behalf of us, Uddhava had already asked Krishna.


Bhagavan Krishna laughed. ‘Dear Uddhava',
the law of this world is : "Only the one who has Viveka (intelligence through discrimination), wins".


"While Duryodhana had viveka, Dharmaraj lacked it. That is why Dharmaraj lost."


Uddhava was lost and confused.


Krishna continues "While Duryodhana had lots of money and wealth to gamble, he did not know how to play the game of dice. That is why he used his Uncle Shakuni to play the game while he betted. That is viveka.


Dharmaraj also could have thought similarly and offered that, his cousin, I would play on his behalf. ! ? !


If Shakuni and I had played the game of dice, who do you think would have won ? Can he roll the numbers I am calling or would I roll the numbers he is asking ! ? !


Forget this. I can forgive the fact that he forgot to include me in the game.


But, without viveka, he did another blunder. He prayed that I should not come to the hall as he did not want me to know that through ill-fate he was compelled to play this game.


He tied me with his prayers and did not allow me to get into the hall; I was just outside the hall waiting for someone to call me through their prayers.


Even when Bheema, Arjuna, Nakula and Sahadeva were lost, they were only cursing Duryodhana and brooding over their fate; they forgot to call me.


Even Draupadi did not call me when Dusshasan held her hair and dragged her to fulfil his brother’s order. She was also arguing in the hall, based on her own abilities. She never called me.


Finally good sense prevailed; when Dusshasan started disrobing her, She gave up depending on her own strength, and started shouting ‘Hari, Hari, Abhayam Krishna, Abhayam’ and shouted for me. ! ! !


Only then I got an opportunity to save her modesty. I reached as soon as I was called. I saved her modesty. What is my mistake in this situation ? ! ?


"Wonderful explanation, Kanna, I am impressed. However, I am not deceived. Can I ask you another question", says Uddhava.


Krishna gives him the permission to proceed.
"Does it mean that you will come only when you are called ! Will you not come on your own to help people in crisis, to establish justice ?", asks Uddhava.


Krishna smiles. "Uddhava, in this life everyone’s life proceeds based on their own 'karma'."


I don’t run it;
I don’t interfere in it.
I am only a ‘witness’.
I stand close to you and keep observing whatever is happening. This is "God’s Dharma".


"Wow, very good Krishna. In that case, you will stand close to us, observe all our evil acts; as we keep committing more and more sins, you will keep watching us. You want us to commit more blunders, accumulate sins and suffer", says Uddhava.!


Krishna says : "Uddhava, please realise the deeper meaning of your statements. When you understand & realise that I am standing as witness next to you, how could you do anything wrong or bad. ! ? !


You definitely cannot do anything bad. You forget this and think that you can do things without my knowledge.! ! !


That is when you get into trouble. Dharmaraj’s ignorance was that he thought he can play the game of gambling without my knowledge. If Dharmaraj had realized that I am always present with everyone in the form of ‘Sakshi’ (witness), then wouldn’t the game have finished differently ?"


Uddhava was spellbound and got overwhelmed by Bhakti.


He said, "What a deep philosophy. What a great truth !"


"Even praying and doing pooja to God and calling Him for help are nothing but our feeling / belief. When we start believing that nothing moves without Him, how can we not feel his presence as Witness ? How can we forget this and act ?"


"Throughout Bhagavad Gita, this is the philosophy Krishna imparted to Arjuna. He was the charioteer as well as guide for Arjuna, but he did not fight on his own."


"Realize that Ultimate Sakshi/ Witnesser within & without you And Merge in that God-Consciousness ! Discover Thy Higher Self - The Pure Loveful & Blissful Supreme Consciousness !"


- Tat Tvam Asi ! -


----
As shared via email/facebook. Credits unknown.

hi

nice....when we think.....we can do everything....then we never invite krishna....when we have problem...we invite krishna......


krishna and uddhava are in our heart.......no need to search outside...everything inside....

thanks for the story. good eye opener. It gives ample ground to understand who is a friend, witness, decission making process and the fine line :- "Only the one who has Viveka (intelligence through discrimination), wins". The entire mahabaratha can be described with this sentence, (again reproduced) "Only the one who has Viveka (intelligence through discrimination), wins".
Always tell us such type of examples to make good decissions in our life.

Super interpretation! Thanks for sharing!

Good explanation, but there could be another one. We could back-calculate the cause from the result. Without the dice game there would be no Mahabharata war and without the war, how would the Kauravas get eliminated? That was Krishna's mission after all, to destroy evil.

Actually I pity Lord Krishna..He had to deal with the Pandavas ..a bunch of losers.

I prefer the Bad Boys Kauravas anytime.

BTW why no one talks about the looks of the Kauravas? I am quite sure Duryodhana must have been a handsome guy..Bad boys are usually handsome!LOL

The underlying truth is that what we call God or Krishna is within ourselves only, ever present as a "nithya sAkshi" or permanent witness because not even one of our body cells can function without this power being present in us. You, as a person, are bound by the Karmas whose results you are bound to experience during this life time. Even that "nithya sAkshi" cannot do anything to change that already written script. Praying to God, remembering God, etc., may create some amount of humility and stoicism in your personality both of which may prevent further bad karmas being committed by you and pave the way for a slightly better next life.

sangom said:

The underlying truth is that what we call God or Krishna is within ourselves only, ever present as a "nithya sAkshi" or permanent witness because not even one of our body cells can function without this power being present in us. You, as a person, are bound by the Karmas whose results you are bound to experience during this life time. Even that "nithya sAkshi" cannot do anything to change that already written script. Praying to God, remembering God, etc., may create some amount of humility and stoicism in your personality both of which may prevent further bad karmas being committed by you and pave the way for a slightly better next life.

Click to expand...

This is same Gods paradox - Can He create a rock with he cannot lift
Here -- Is it Dharma for Him to be in a situation where he cannot control Adharma?

I have a doubt here.

From the write up it seems that Krishna expects to be called when needed.

Doesn't this mean that we are expected to see Krishna as separate from us?cos we can only call out for help from someone who exists as a separate entity.

It does not matter whether the entity is outside of us or beside us or even inside us..but the fact is the entity is alien to us..only then we would be able to call for help.

So doesn't Krishna support the concept of amalgamation of Jeeva and Paramatma as becoming a single entity?

I somehow have ditched this asking for help concept.I feel nothing will work..only Karma runs as a background app and everyone else including God remains a witness.

Instead of asking for help that may never arrive its better I try to figure out how to solve my own problems..after all if its supposed to be Aham Brahmaasmi then my actions too are the same as God's help isnt it?

I somehow have ditched this asking for help concept.I feel nothing will work..only Karma runs as a background app and everyone else including God remains a witness.

Instead of asking for help that may never arrive its better I try to figure out how to solve my own problems..after all if its supposed to be Aham Brahmaasmi then my actions too are the same as God's help isnt it?[/QUOTE]

You have given acceptable explanation.
Exactly this is what Lord Krishna intended to make us understand. Interpretations from mythological stories have to be circumvented to suit the day and circumstance/time, place of the explanation.

renuka said:

I have a doubt here.

From the write up it seems that Krishna expects to be called when needed.

Doesn't this mean that we are expected to see Krishna as separate from us?cos we can only call out for help from someone who exists as a separate entity.

It does not matter whether the entity is outside of us or beside us or even inside us..but the fact is the entity is alien to us..only then we would be able to call for help.

So doesn't Krishna support the concept of amalgamation of Jeeva and Paramatma as becoming a single entity?

I somehow have ditched this asking for help concept.I feel nothing will work..only Karma runs as a background app and everyone else including God remains a witness.

Instead of asking for help that may never arrive its better I try to figure out how to solve my own problems..after all if its supposed to be Aham Brahmaasmi then my actions too are the same as God's help isnt it?

Click to expand...

I think people have this impression that he comes only on call recollecting Draupathis Vasthrabrana episode! Naryana in fact responds even when there is no call for him - Ajamila story you remember? He calls is son Naryana thrice and Naryana takes this call and chased away Yama! Naryana takes even wrong calls!

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&r...m1yDi2iZzlR8xbnQQ&sig2=5phkAtWYiUSiEV-BDjS6IA

Janaki Jambunathan said:

This is same Gods paradox - Can He create a rock with he cannot lift
Here -- Is it Dharma for Him to be in a situation where he cannot control Adharma?

Click to expand...

God, or the living power within each one of us (and all other living and inanimate things in the universe) creates mainly us, i.e., empowers the otherwise inanimate body, which will rot and stink in a matter of days, to be "alive". All the rest we 9i.e., each one of us) perceives or experiences through our senses, mind and intellect, as this universe. Our perceptions, experiences, etc., differ vastly on account of the karmas, the results of which we are bound to experience during this lifetime.

God, unfortunately, does not have the privilege of having another God within Him, just as we do, and so He can only be a mute witness or a nirguna parabrahman.

The above truth is inconvenient to established religion (in fact, any established religion) which depends on marketing some all-powerful, creator-God and that is the reason for the jumble in the OP and the Gods paradox.

renuka said:

I have a doubt here.

From the write up it seems that Krishna expects to be called when needed.

Doesn't this mean that we are expected to see Krishna as separate from us?cos we can only call out for help from someone who exists as a separate entity.

It does not matter whether the entity is outside of us or beside us or even inside us..but the fact is the entity is alien to us..only then we would be able to call for help.

So doesn't Krishna support the concept of amalgamation of Jeeva and Paramatma as becoming a single entity?

I somehow have ditched this asking for help concept.I feel nothing will work..only Karma runs as a background app and everyone else including God remains a witness.

Instead of asking for help that may never arrive its better I try to figure out how to solve my own problems..after all if its supposed to be Aham Brahmaasmi then my actions too are the same as God's help isnt it?

Click to expand...

Smt. Renuka,

Kindly see may post above. The write-up (OP) has in fact come here more than once before and is kind of 'aracca mAvu' only. It is related to the popular, marketed kind of religion, whereas, in truth, the God is ever a nithya sAkshi only and cannot be yet another anthropomorphic God who will come if called and will not care if He is not called.

As you rightly say, "only Karma runs as a background app" but everything else acts the drama scripted by karma. It is somewhat fallacious to put weight on "I", because, in truth, there is no "I" and no "God". The closest which can be thought of is the famous prayer "Lead kindly light, amidst the encircling gloom" and pray to the inner light, both in times of adversity and prosperity.

hi renu


AAHARA NIDRA BHAYAM MAITHUNAM CA SAAMANY ETHATH PASUBIR NARAANAM....

VIVEKA EKA EVA MANUSHYANAAM VISHESHAHA.....

renuka said:

I have a doubt here.

From the write up it seems that Krishna expects to be called when needed.

Doesn't this mean that we are expected to see Krishna as separate from us?cos we can only call out for help from someone who exists as a separate entity.

It does not matter whether the entity is outside of us or beside us or even inside us..but the fact is the entity is alien to us..only then we would be able to call for help.

So doesn't Krishna support the concept of amalgamation of Jeeva and Paramatma as becoming a single entity?

I somehow have ditched this asking for help concept.I feel nothing will work..only Karma runs as a background app and everyone else including God remains a witness.

Instead of asking for help that may never arrive its better I try to figure out how to solve my own problems..after all if its supposed to be Aham Brahmaasmi then my actions too are the same as God's help isnt it?

Click to expand...

This is a bit of conundrum, but as you believe in para-normal entities it may be easier for me to explain to you.

First, for dvaitins and vishisht-advaitins, Lord Krishna is a separate entity and there is no question of aikyam. So the issue is that of advaitins.

Ishwara could (or should) be both within and without the individual. This has been amply clarified in various scriptures, if one goes by the scriptures. Second, the instance narrated in the OP is the case where Lord Krishna was vocally called aloud and heard by others. There could be innumerable cases where the call was silent and was to the **one residing within** and obviously there cant be a reporter of such instance and people are reluctant to believe self declarations. We have phrases such as "sudden rousing of energy", "summoning the inner reserves etc." which indicate full potential is not realised till called upon by circumstances.

It is not always that when we call out aloud, we call an extenal agency. Like for example Milkha Singh exhorting himself to run and captured in the semi autobiographical movie "Bhag Milkha Singh Bhag". You, yourselves would have used phrases such as "Come on Renu, U can do it" or "Oh God, let me get this right etc.". Whether your calling out was aloud or silent, it was meant to the inner person. The same Renuka would have also visited one or two temples and paid respects or regards or whatever to the Lord supposed to be residing in the Murthy.

If microcosm is miniature of macrocosm, then Lord should at both at places or at none of the places. As to Lord being an alien, no alien substance is retained in the body (if in the physical form) and is ejected out, unless force-fitted (like pace maker, steel rod supporting limb etc.) and if it is non-physical, such a thought is rejected and thrown out by the mind.

It is possible that Ishwara may be a para-normal entity (but of an infinite Good stuff) and there need to be a special bonding to seek/see him. The mode of seeking Him or summoning him is neither standardised nor uniform, and which can neither be seen nor explained nor rationalised, so there will be Believers, Nonbelievers, Disbelievers, Doubting Thomases and "I told you so" know-alls who will support when their point of view is brought out.

zebra16 said:

. You, yourselves would have used phrases such as "Come on Renu, U can do it" or "Oh God, let me get this right etc.". Whether your calling out was aloud or silent, it was meant to the inner person.

Click to expand...

Reading this line made me smile..becos I usually do not mention my name when I want to do something.

Usually I 'scold' myself and tell myself "hey you bloody *%$#@..you can do it"


When I scold myself with harsh words I feel more brave!LOL

tbs said:

hi renu


AAHARA NIDRA BHAYAM MAITHUNAM CA SAAMANY ETHATH PASUBIR NARAANAM....

VIVEKA EKA EVA MANUSHYANAAM VISHESHAHA.....

Click to expand...

Its just that with so called Viveka the humans knows how to get better food,sleep better and copulate better..who uses their Viveka for anything worth while?

Humans are animals but we just make ourselves feel better by claiming we have Viveka!LOL

Mahabharatha is the story of Pshatriyas happened some thousands years back. War among Pashatriya was a common thing, as long as Varnasarama Dharma was practised.

Coming to the question of Krishna: Was he a human being, an avatar of a God or a God himself? It is said after the war he was killed by a hunter. If it is true, he was a human being. Had he been an avatar or God, he could have known it well in advance, and prevented it.

Unless it is cleared, discussing about Krishna's position may not bring the truth.

Some comments based on the OP. I remember seeing a similar post a while ago though it may not have generated as many discussions posts then.

The entire story of disrobing of Draupathi seem to be a later day addition to the story from what I understand.

From how the epic Mahabharatha is presented as story within a story there are many things available for examination today straight from the scripture itself.

1. Originally it was about 8800 verses attributed to one Vyasa
2. It was heard by his student Vaisampayana and narrated during a ritual of one King Janamejaya. It seems the rituals used to take a long time and in between ritual preparations, professional story tellers were employed to keep everyone occupied. This is called Bharatha and is about 24000 verses
3. One Ugrasvara Sauti who was present and heard the story by Vaisampayana narrated the story again (he being another professional story teller) during another 12 year old ritual by another king. This version is about 96000 verses.

There are many editions called Bombay edition, Kumabakonam edition etc of this epic and some are supported by original manuscripts dated about 1000 years ago. While I am not history buff what I know is from some sources I trust. Also this Wikipedia article supports some of what I have shared


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata

Of the many editions, there is one critical edition referenced above. This version was created by scholars who wanted to know if there were additions made by many others from the version told by Sauti. Let me quote a passage from the above wikipedia article

"Between 1919 and 1966, scholars at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, compared the various manuscripts of the epic from India and abroad and produced the Critical Edition of the Mahabharata, on 13,000 pages in 19 volumes, followed by the Harivamsha in another two volumes and six index volumes. This is the text that is usually used in current Mahabharata studies for reference.[45] This work is sometimes called the "Pune" or "Poona" edition of the Mahabharata."

Someone who is a Sanskrit scholar I know and loves to do research into Mahabharatha told me that the critical edition does not have this story of disrobing of Draupathi. So scholars from 1919 - 1966 must have had reasons to believe that there is a lot of imagination at play.

Even the epic itself has been retold twice by professional story tellers.

Coming to reference to Sri Krishna as an avatara there are several versions

1. Sri Krishna of Bhagavatham who appears to do magic but Bhagavatham happens to have profound vedantic verses in almost everyone one of the 320 or so chapters. For many Sri Krishna is a lovable magician and he is Bhakta's Krishna and lives in their heart.

2. Radha Krishna - Yet another aspect for many Bhakthas to feel devotional though Radha may not have any reference in Srimad Bhagavatham.

3. Finally there is Mahabharatha Krishna in this epic that is told and retold. Within this epic there is Gita Krishna who is presented as Bhagavan by Vyasa and the Gita itself unfolds timeless truths for anyone that cares to understand with the help of a qualified teacher. Here Sri Krishna is just a name unfolding timeless truths as a philosopher.


There are all kinds of imagination at play including the descriptions in the opening post.

There is no need to reconcile all these imaginations. Those that want to feel devotional should be welcome to feel so. Those that want to seek the truth at all cost can do so as well.

tks said:

Some comments based on the OP. I remember seeing a similar post a while ago though it may not have generated as many discussions posts then.

The entire story of disrobing of Draupathi seem to be a later day addition to the story from what I understand.

From how the epic Mahabharatha is presented as story within a story there are many things available for examination today straight from the scripture itself.

1. Originally it was about 8800 verses attributed to one Vyasa
2. It was heard by his student Vaisampayana and narrated during a ritual of one King Janamejaya. It seems the rituals used to take a long time and in between ritual preparations, professional story tellers were employed to keep everyone occupied. This is called Bharatha and is about 24000 verses
3. One Ugrasvara Sauti who was present and heard the story by Vaisampayana narrated the story again (he being another professional story teller) during another 12 year old ritual by another king. This version is about 96000 verses.

There are many editions called Bombay edition, Kumabakonam edition etc of this epic and some are supported by original manuscripts dated about 1000 years ago. While I am not history buff what I know is from some sources I trust. Also this Wikipedia article supports some of what I have shared


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata

Of the many editions, there is one critical edition referenced above. This version was created by scholars who wanted to know if there were additions made by many others from the version told by Sauti. Let me quote a passage from the above wikipedia article

"Between 1919 and 1966, scholars at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, compared the various manuscripts of the epic from India and abroad and produced the Critical Edition of the Mahabharata, on 13,000 pages in 19 volumes, followed by the Harivamsha in another two volumes and six index volumes. This is the text that is usually used in current Mahabharata studies for reference.[45] This work is sometimes called the "Pune" or "Poona" edition of the Mahabharata."

Someone who is a Sanskrit scholar I know and loves to do research into Mahabharatha told me that the critical edition does not have this story of disrobing of Draupathi. So scholars from 1919 - 1966 must have had reasons to believe that there is a lot of imagination at play.

Even the epic itself has been retold twice by professional story tellers.

Coming to reference to Sri Krishna as an avatara there are several versions

1. Sri Krishna of Bhagavatham who appears to do magic but Bhagavatham happens to have profound vedantic verses in almost everyone one of the 320 or so chapters. For many Sri Krishna is a lovable magician and he is Bhakta's Krishna and lives in their heart.

2. Radha Krishna - Yet another aspect for many Bhakthas to feel devotional though Radha may not have any reference in Srimad Bhagavatham.

3. Finally there is Mahabharatha Krishna in this epic that is told and retold. Within this epic there is Gita Krishna who is presented as Bhagavan by Vyasa and the Gita itself unfolds timeless truths for anyone that cares to understand with the help of a qualified teacher. Here Sri Krishna is just a name unfolding timeless truths as a philosopher.


There are all kinds of imagination at play including the descriptions in the opening post.

There is no need to reconcile all these imaginations. Those that want to feel devotional should be welcome to feel so. Those that want to seek the truth at all cost can do so as well.

Click to expand...

This is Hindutva l Tolarance and No intolerance from Mahabharath times!

Krishna is not a software programmer HE is the knowledge behind the program hence depends on how much the knowledge the person has