Anyone interested in discussing case studies

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Before embarking on the draupadi dilemma, let me pose questions which brings out certain principles

Here are they:

1.Do you think lying is immoral?
2. Would you lie to save the life of a person?
3. what if the person you are trying to save is wicked?

 

[renuka]

Here is a bender of a dilemma. Definitely not for dabblers!

Draupadi's dilemma in marrying all the pandavas after Arjuna won her.

Should she have done that?

Dear Sravna,

Before that..even though I know you have high respect for Draupadi..I would like to bring to attention that most Hindus always looks at Draupadi from a sexual point of view.

Recently I saw an old Tamil movie where a woman named Panchali wanted to divorce her husband and marry again cos he is sterile and unable to give her a child..then the lawyer asked her what if your 2nd husband too is sterile?

She replied.."I will keep on marrying till I get a child"

Then the lawyer said "You have been aptly named Draupadi"

Also another movie showing Suhashini who loved Pratap and he dies and his look alike falls in love with her but she commits suicide and does not want to love another even a look alike.

The story ends with a commentary said "She is a Sita..not a Draupadi"

I feel we Hindus should know that Draupadi is not a immoral women..she was a faithful wife to all her husbands and she was the Dharma Patni to all of them.

Now coming to your question.

Should she had done that?

In the past a woman did not have much say..she just followed dictates of what was laid down for her by others.

Yes..its was a difficult decision for her but she did her followed what was suggested by Lord Krishna and accepted it whole heartedly and did her duties well as a wife.

 

[renuka]

Before embarking on the draupadi dilemma, let me pose questions which brings out certain principles

Here are they:

1.Do you think lying is immoral?
2. Would you lie to save the life of a person?
3. what if the person you are trying to save is wicked?

Dear Sravna,

1)I lie from time to time.

When someone calls and I dont want to talk to them..I lie that I am busy!LOL

Sometimes I dont answer the call at all from people who I know might irritate me..I have days where I wont feel like talking to anyone..so I keep lying"I will call you back later" and I never call!LOL


What else can I do? I cant tell them "Hey stop bugging me"

So lying can actually be polite.

Otherwise I don't lie for serious matters.

2)Lie to safe a life of a person.

It depends if the person had committed a crime or not cos I surely would not want to be dragged into any criminal case.

So far never faced the situation....but legally I am obliged to safe all lives..wicked,good,bad or criminal.

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

Draupati is a strong woman She is Hi Five!

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&r...tvla7yiUzO5MHo69Q&sig2=GV7ZZQIaQB3-CwCyCKaaXg

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Here are my views.

Lying is immoral when there is no moral basis to utter it. It is generally not as straightforward as this. The situation becomes complicated when there are two or more dharmas at play. The second question reflects this. Then you have to see which is the higher dharma among the two and perform it. So in general I would lie to save the life of a person when somebody is coming after him to kill him. The third question complicates this even further.

Let us make it simpler. Would you be concerned for the life of a wicked person? The natural reaction is no because he is likely to corrupt or harm others in some way. But look at it this way. The person presents a problem. If one can find solution to a problem there is permanent cure to it unlike trying to suppress it by not saving the wicked person. Can you cure a wicked person? That is what God does all the time through the various events that happen in one's life and the various personal experiences one has , the wicked person also is set right. So a person at the level of the highest dharma would not hesitate to save the wicked person because he knows that the person can be corrected.

But in general, if you do not find a person at the highest level of dharma , the ideal solution would be to first eliminate the symptoms and still work towards a permanent cure.

 

[renuka]

Let us make it simpler. Would you be concerned for the life of a wicked person? The natural reaction is no because he is likely to corrupt or harm others in some way. But look at it this way. The person presents a problem. If one can find solution to a problem there is permanent cure to it unlike trying to suppress it by not saving the wicked person. Can you cure a wicked person? That is what God does all the time through the various events that happen in one's life and the various personal experiences one has , the wicked person also is set right. So a person at the level of the highest dharma would not hesitate to save the wicked person because he knows that the person can be corrected.

But in general, if you do not find a person at the highest level of dharma , the ideal solution would be to first eliminate the symptoms and still work towards a permanent cure.

Dear Sravna,

Once I was shopping in a mall with my son and husband and we heard gun shots!

Robbers had gunned down a gold shop's security guard but the security guard from another shop managed to shot a robber dead.

I told my husband to look after my son and I went to see if either the security guard or robber was still alive.

Another doc too was there ..so he handled the shot security guard and I handled the robber...but both were already dead and we could not revive either.

At that time I did not think who was the robber and who was the victim...all I saw is two humans that needed help.

So its very hard to say that we wont be concerned for the life of a wicked person unless we are in a direct confrontation where our own life is in danger..then it becomes self defense.

Further more I am no saint to judge another so harshly that his/her life means nothing that I can totally not care to save him/her.

Every human good or bad has a right to live and be saved if their life is in danger.

Once the so called bad person recovers he will have to face the law and its consequences...the law's sentences is to correct a person thru a jail sentence..which rarely works cos mostly people usually become hard core criminals after a prison sentence.

One does not have to be a person with highest level Dharma to save the life of a so called wicked person...one just has to have compassion and an understanding that everyone has faults and no one is perfect to judge another.

And its not easy living with the guilt that we let someone die..I feel bad even if I step on an insect..I surely wont want anyone to die be it sinner or saint.

 

[renuka]

Draupati is a strong woman She is Hi Five!

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&r...tvla7yiUzO5MHo69Q&sig2=GV7ZZQIaQB3-CwCyCKaaXg

Nicely written article.

 

[sravna]

.

Dear Renuka,

I agree with you. That is the reason I said we finally have to find an enduring solution.

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

கால் முளைத்தால் ஓடலாம், நடக்கலாம், நிற்கலாம்.
ஆனால் வால் முளைத்தால் (ஏவ்....) ப்ரச்னை தான். ராமாயணத்து மது வனம் தான்.

வியாசருக்கு கால் முளைத்தால் ? then it is மஹாயணம்!
Hi Five Draupathi of Vyasa kidnapped by equally strong character - Ravanan - Imagine Draupathi in place of Seetha! Wife fi Ravana wants her to be his wife! The story about Hi Five and Wife Fi in மஹாயணம் should be interesting! I I should be wrting this story soon! One more version of Ramayana!

 

[sravna]

Nicely written article.

I read the article. It presents the patent aspects of polyandry and does not give any insights into the delicacies of the problem. Let us talk about polyandry first. Does it violate any dharma? I think so because anything that kindles the six enemies of the mind is against dharma. An average woman with more than one husband gives plenty of room for kindling almost all the six enemies of mind to an undue extent assuming average husbands. The same may happen in polygamy but it is worse in polyandry.

But here is my analysis of why such righteous people as kunti, pandavas , draupadi and the Lord Himself consented for such a marriage. The background of the problem is while the pandavas were in exile, there was an agreement of sharing anything that they brought home. It so happened in the case of Draupadi who was brought home that Kunti unknowingly told the pandavas to share what was brought.

Since this is a dilemma, opposing dharmas should be at work. So what are the opposing dharmas at work? Th first one is having to honor the promise made among themselves and the word of the mother. The opposing adharma is a woman marrying five men. The only way this can be satisfactorily resolved is when the adharma is not seen as such. So going by the rationale that adharma is something that kindles the six enemies, would this situation have kindled the six enemies in the pandavas or in Draupadi. The answer is no since all the six are so righteous that it would not have an impact on the six enemies of mind.

Thus in my view Draupadi or others did not violate any dharma. The aspect of sex should not even be discussed because it creates an opacity that can make it difficult to properly interpret the case.

 

[sravna]

Note: If there is adharma in performing something it can be still done, provided you are be to use a higher dharma in that act. In the case of Draupadi's dilemma it happens that there is no adharma.

 

[Vaagmi]

As the thread is winding into what is truth, I bring this to the members' notice from Thirukkural:

• வாய்மை எனப்படுவது யாதெனின் யாதொன்றும்
  தீமை இலாத சொலல். (291)
  
  
  What is truthfulness? It is nothing but utterance Wholly devoid of ill.
• பொய்மையும் வாய்மை யிடத்த புரைதீர்ந்த
  நன்மை பயக்கும் எனின். (292)
  
  
  Even a lie would take the place of truth, If it brings blameless benefit.
• தன்நெஞ் சறிவது பொய்யற்க பொய்த்தபின்
  தன்நெஞ்சே தன்னைச் சுடும். (293)
  
  
  Lie not against your conscience, Lest your own conscience burn you.
• உள்ளத்தாற் பொய்யா தொழுகின் உலகத்தார்
  உள்ளத்து ளெல்லாம் உளன். (294)
  
  
  He who lives truly in his own heart, Truly lives in the hearts of all people.
• மனத்தொடு வாய்மை மொழியின் தவத்தொடு
  தானஞ்செய் வாரின் தலை. (295)
  
  
  Truthfulness in thought and word Outweighs penance and charity.
• பொய்யாமை அன்ன புகழில்லை எய்யாமை
  எல்லா அறமுந் தரும். (296)
  
  
  Nothing but the fame of truthfulness Can give all other virtues effortlessly.
• பொய்யாமை பொய்யாமை ஆற்றின் அறம்பிற
  செய்யாமை செய்யாமை நன்று. (297)
  
  
  If one speaks the truth and only truth, He need not seek other virtues.
• புறள்தூய்மை நீரான் அமையும் அகந்தூய்மை
  வாய்மையால் காணப் படும். (298)
  
  
  Water ensures external purity And truthfulness shows the internal.
• எல்லா விளக்கும் விளக்கல்ல சான்றோர்க்குப்
  பொய்யா விளக்கே விளக்கு. (299)
  
  
  Not all lights cause illumination; For the wise, Only the light of truth is illuminant.
• யாமெய்யாக் கண்டவற்றுள் இல்லை எனைத்தொன்றும்
  வாய்மையின் நல்ல பிற. (300)
  
  
  Amidst all that we have seen as real, There is nothing as good as truthfulness.

 

[renuka]

sravna;333569. Let us talk about polyandry first. Does it violate any dharma? I think so because anything that kindles the six enemies of the mind is against dharma. An average woman with more than one husband gives plenty of room for kindling almost all the six enemies of mind to an undue extent assuming average husbands. The same may happen in polygamy but it is worse in polyandry.

Dear Sravna,

The six enemies have nothing to do with the number of spouses..even a celibate can have Kama,Krodha,Moha,Mada,Lobha and Matsarya.

The very fact that you have written that polyandry is worse than polygamy shows that you have a pre conceived notion that a woman should belong to only one person...that is possessiveness and comes under Lobha..cos possessiveness has shades of ownership ..that leads to greed...Lobha..to own an object.

Technically Polyandary and Polygamy are no different.

The polygamous husband and polygamous wife have extra responsibility towards the family.
Its not an easy state.

My concern for polygamy and polyandry is spread of diseases....provided all members stay faithful there is less chance of acquired Sexually Transmitted Disease but hereditary diseases like Hep B,Hep C can spread.
Also local infections like Candidiasis can spread.
HPV too is a risk.


Otherwise I do not find anything morally wrong with Polyandry and Polygamy if a society sanctions it.

In India itself there are tribes that practice Polyandary and they lead simple happy lives and love all their husbands.

I feel the human being was never ever made to be monogamous/monoandrous.

We have been culturally conditioned to have only one partner cos that is economical and ensures security for family cos very few people can be equal to all wives or all husbands.

Even Draupadi loved Arjuna the most.

If we just remove the sexual part of polyandry/polygamy..then we only see love in the air.

A human can love more than one person...parents love all their children...we also love all our siblings..so what is so hard to love all our husbands and wives?

 

[sravna]

Yes Renuka even a celibate can have the emotions Consider these two cases:

1. Two heterosexual couples 2. Two men and one wife.

In the first case it is the normal emotions depending the nature of those people that are created and displayed

In the second case, the ego of the two men clash. When ego clashes all the emotions go awry. The wife may show partiality. The guilt feeling will not be so strong because both are husbands unlike in the case where she is emotionally attached to a person other than her husband. This can affect her own psyche in a negative way because generally one negative trait leads to another. Sex plays a greeter role because two men are involved.

So what happens in polyandry is that the external aspect of the relationship is highlighted more than connecting at the inner level. A woman being more inward seeking than men is more affected than a man who has polygamous relationship.

 

[renuka]

Yes Renuka even a celibate can have the emotions Consider these two cases:

1. Two heterosexual couples 2. Two men and one wife.

In the first case it is the normal emotions depending the nature of those people that are created and displayed

In the second case, the ego of the two men clash. When ego clashes all the emotions go awry. The wife may show partiality. The guilt feeling will not be so strong because both are husbands unlike in the case where she is emotionally attached to a person other than her husband. This can affect her own psyche in a negative way because generally one negative trait leads to another. Sex plays a greeter role because two men are involved.

So what happens in polyandry is that the external aspect of the relationship is highlighted more than connecting at the inner level. A woman being more inward seeking than men is more affected than a man who has polygamous relationship.

Dear Sravna,

Before that I feel its men who feel that a woman is more inward seeking than a man...this is not entirely true.

Its males who imagine this cos they want a female to be emotionally connected to them but in reality a female just knows very well how to survive.

Just think for a second..when a male becomes a widower..he almost can not manage his life and looking after the kids but a female who becomes a widow even without any education or help can manage life for her and her children most of the while.

The reason is a female is actually the emotionally stronger one..she is not really a inwardly seeking person.
Nature would have never intended to make the the female a desperately emotional one cos that would spell disaster in unfavorable conditions.

But this fact is usually quite well concealed by a female and they go about life fooling males that they are indeed emotional based creatures.

Mostly females can be cold and calculative too and spin a web for survival of self and children.

She has to be this...for a complacent female would lose out in the race of survival.

I do not see any reason why a female in a polyandrous situation does not find any inner connection..just imagine..there is actually even more attention..she can always be in charge of her emotions..she does not have to be biased..she can compartmentalize.

But anyway most polyandrous situations in India is not really anything great cos the female marries the brothers from the same family...so its still as if that she is owned by the brothers.

On the other hand..males are free to marry women from different families..its not as if the males marry all sisters.

So there is no real ideal polyandrous situation in India.

True polyandry is having a harem of spouses from different families so that there is genetic variation.

 

[krish44]

Sravna
You have lost the case.

Judgement pronounced.lol

 

[sravna]

Sravna
You have lost the case.

Judgement pronounced.lol

A temporary setback due to a strong testimony. Let me try to appeal again

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

Wi Five Policeman!

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&r...ygp2DysVlyrtWhoXA&sig2=Rh5tjaYs2-lP7K8oayN-Dw

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Let me state the cardinal difference between happiness from the inner self and happiness from the external world. In the former you get happiness by focusing on the whole. The more you compartmentalize the more you lose the happiness. In the latter you get happiness by spending your energy on a number of things. The more the variety or more the differences, the more happiness it gives you. So while it is the unchanging that gives you inner happiness , it is the constantly changing that gives external happiness. They are different levels of happiness.

Are you able to see what woman in a polyandrous situation loses where there is a lot of efforts that needs to be spent on compartmentalizing?

 

[auh]

All the so called conflicts and emotions arise from the social construct only. And it all boils down to how far we are attached to the construct (similar to brand loyalty)... there might be hard core adherents; some flirting in and out, and the others who have a disdain for such things.

We cannot arrive at a firm conclusion based on such fleeting variables.

 

[sravna]

Mr.X is a rich and powerful man in his village. By catering to the weaknesses of the people, he was able to keep everybody under his control. However Mr.Y is an incorruptible person and wanted to sway the people away from the bad influences of X. He sought to inculcate independent thinking in people. This implied giving up short term pleasures and disciplined practice of the prescriptions of Y.

How can Y accomplish the difficult task?

Note: A good and practical solution can help in weaning people away from unprincipled and corrupt politicians.

 

[sravna]

Here's my solution:

The general belief among people is that everyone will have weaknesses and succumb to them. People start believing in you when you lead by example. The fact that Y is incorruptible makes the matter easy for him. He has to show that he is above the intoxicating effects of money, women or power. If he can do that people will definitely listen to him as good appeals to the inner self of everyone. People have shunned it because it doesn't seem to be practical to be good. But X will do all he can with his power and money to prevent this from happening. Being good in any situation is being divine. So I think the machinations of X will eventually be overcome.

Nobody wants to live in chaos and disorder. Our moral laxity and compromise of principles has led to a chaotic world and chaos cannot be overcome by force . It will only lead to more chaos. We have to think intelligently and that means setting right our own ways and the problems will disappear by themselves without additional efforts. So politicians who are like X will have to do a lot of introspection and act in a way that does not belie good principles.

 

[sravna]

Y needs to adopt a two pronged approach. He should appeal to the minds of the people though that by itself is not enough. He should show the viability of what he says by his actions. Only when teachings are integrated with actions, they yield the desired results. That is teaching by example. In fact it should be beyond that. People should be able to follow it themselves.

A novel way of implementing the approach is that he can ask the people themselves to be teachers to other people. You learn most effectively when you teach. When people try to teach, they really try to think on their own and that is the most authentic way of learning.

 

[rishikesan]

Very first example taken for Case study is only for matured /for those who indulge in many ways, including extra-marital relations , which , will not be tolerated by Brahmin, decent/married women who are the Bulk in our Brahmin lot . Mr Sravna,s Topic should not have been allowed in the First instance( I hope , all Members , except Renuka, I feel it is not in Good taste.better to think of Cases which would be nice & interesting to contribute by All.
Let me write more after getting feed back from our Praveen & other seasoned stalwarts , namely
Krish44
Rishikesan. ( A. Srinivasan)

 

[auh]

Very first example taken for Case study is only for matured /for those who indulge in many ways, including extra-marital relations , which , will not be tolerated by Brahmin, decent/married women who are the Bulk in our Brahmin lot . Mr Sravna,s Topic should not have been allowed in the First instance( I hope , all Members , except Renuka, I feel it is not in Good taste.better to think of Cases which would be nice & interesting to contribute by All.
Let me write more after getting feed back from our Praveen & other seasoned stalwarts , namely
Krish44
Rishikesan. ( A. Srinivasan)

I disagree with the above post.

Thanks,

ps. sentence edited to make better sense.