Eric11235
24 September 2010, 06:38 PM
Vannakam All,
I am currently reading the entire unabridged Mahabharata of Vyasa, I'm reading the ganguli translation and am roughly 1300 pages in. I have begun to notice that there is more moral ambiguity than is originally seen. The characters of the Mahabharata (both the pandavas and the kauravas) have much more gradients when analyzed.
Take for example, Bhima. he is the strongest man, he is an ideal character: versed in the vedas, warfare and overall knowledge. But he can also be quick to anger, and is much more vocal about his discontent than his other brothers, which makes him seem rather hotheaded.
Yudishthira, the son of Dharma, he is the personification of Justice. He is the eldest and a good king. However, he has a problem with gambling. He is the exact opposite of his brother, almost a foil to Bhima, being more contemplative and overall a more peaceful person, but when war is needed, he is ready. He does some things (which escape me at the moment) that are questionable, all in the name of virtue.
then there is Arjuna, son of indra, the best of the brothers (although the terms foremost, best, and other such superlatives refer to multiple people in the translation I am reading) the conflagration of the khandava forest, while done for agni, is still fairly brutal in the way he annihilates almost all of teh life in the forest. He also commits adultery during his twelve year exile because of walking in on draupadi and yudishthira.
Nakula and Sahadeva, I have found to be very little developed and are generally pushed aside.
Now perhaps the most striking moral ambiguity lies within Duryodhana, Karna, Drona, and Bhishma. Duryodhana, while undoubtedly an evil character and the main antagonist, apparently has a good side.
A great example is Karna, he is the most conflicted character in the work. A highly virtuous character and undeniable fighter. He is a pandava, but his allegiance with duryodhana leads him to act against the pandavas, and is considered bad due to his acts against them.
Now I'm not saying that they are horrible people, they are all ideal characters, But the fact that they have more human qualities (i.e. fallability) makes the book an interesting read.
I hope I have not offended anyone with my thoughts, and as always, I encourage some debate. I know I could find many more examples of my point, but I will leave it at this.
Namaste
I am currently reading the entire unabridged Mahabharata of Vyasa, I'm reading the ganguli translation and am roughly 1300 pages in. I have begun to notice that there is more moral ambiguity than is originally seen. The characters of the Mahabharata (both the pandavas and the kauravas) have much more gradients when analyzed.
Take for example, Bhima. he is the strongest man, he is an ideal character: versed in the vedas, warfare and overall knowledge. But he can also be quick to anger, and is much more vocal about his discontent than his other brothers, which makes him seem rather hotheaded.
Yudishthira, the son of Dharma, he is the personification of Justice. He is the eldest and a good king. However, he has a problem with gambling. He is the exact opposite of his brother, almost a foil to Bhima, being more contemplative and overall a more peaceful person, but when war is needed, he is ready. He does some things (which escape me at the moment) that are questionable, all in the name of virtue.
then there is Arjuna, son of indra, the best of the brothers (although the terms foremost, best, and other such superlatives refer to multiple people in the translation I am reading) the conflagration of the khandava forest, while done for agni, is still fairly brutal in the way he annihilates almost all of teh life in the forest. He also commits adultery during his twelve year exile because of walking in on draupadi and yudishthira.
Nakula and Sahadeva, I have found to be very little developed and are generally pushed aside.
Now perhaps the most striking moral ambiguity lies within Duryodhana, Karna, Drona, and Bhishma. Duryodhana, while undoubtedly an evil character and the main antagonist, apparently has a good side.
A great example is Karna, he is the most conflicted character in the work. A highly virtuous character and undeniable fighter. He is a pandava, but his allegiance with duryodhana leads him to act against the pandavas, and is considered bad due to his acts against them.
Now I'm not saying that they are horrible people, they are all ideal characters, But the fact that they have more human qualities (i.e. fallability) makes the book an interesting read.
I hope I have not offended anyone with my thoughts, and as always, I encourage some debate. I know I could find many more examples of my point, but I will leave it at this.
Namaste