Are Kauravas-Pandavas equally bad? | Mahabharata ethics | Hyd Abids | Youth mtg

To see notes, click here

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

So, recently I was in UK about four night ago, one month, and I was speaking at a university where they study Hinduism studies and there was this British boy who said that I am studying the Mahabharata as a part of my academic studies and he said the two sides of the Mahabharata, the Pandavas and the Kauravas, both of them are just as bad. Both of them did bad things and therefore both of them are bad. So, his point was actually it's very difficult to decide who is good and who is bad because everyone does good things and everyone does bad things.

And everyone is a mix of good and bad. So, do you agree with this? What do you think? It's bad. There are three different things over here.

So, are some things bad? So, what we are going to discuss today is, broadly speaking, when do bad things make a person bad? We all may sometimes do something which is bad. We get angry with someone, we speak harshly, maybe we lie to someone and we might think, you know, actually, you know, I am sorry I did that. That doesn't make me a bad person.

Don't treat me like I am a bad person. But sometimes some bad actions do reflect a person who is bad. So, today what we are going to discuss about is human character and human motivation.

How do we judge people? How do we evaluate people? Say, if you want to be friends with someone, if you want to have a relationship with someone, if you want to have, say, work on a project with someone, have a business partnership with someone. Maybe you want to practice bhakti and have devotional friendship with someone. Have someone as a devotional guide.

How do we trust someone? On what basis do we decide that somebody is a good person or a bad person? So, is this a question that is relevant for you? We all have to decide this, isn't it? So, the question here is that when do a person's actions… So, somebody has done a bad thing. So, is this a reflection of their character? Oh, you do bad, this bad thing. Therefore, you are a bad person.

Or is it an exception for their character? What does exception mean? Have you heard this word exception? What does it mean? Sorry? It's a one-off thing. It's not what they normally do. It's an exception for their character.

It's something which they normally not do. So, therefore, we should give them a chance. It's not who they actually are.

So, if somebody promises that I'll do this thing and they don't do it, let's say I'm sorry about it. Now, does that mean that they are irresponsible? Does that mean that they are forgetful? Or does that mean that they just neglected, overseen, and just continue on as things are? So, let's see how we can decide these things. So, before we do that, let's try to understand a principle that when we are trying to evaluate someone, that life is difficult.

And sometimes we just don't have a good choice. See, basically, there are choices which are moral. And there are choices that are ethical.

Have you heard this word moral and ethical? So, moral choice generally is involved where? One choice is, moral choices are where? One choice is good and one choice is bad. Now, in this case, what happens is, we just need strength of character. We need strength.

We say this is a good thing and I should do it. This is a bad thing, I should not do it. But ethical choices are where? There is good on this side and bad on this side.

And there is good on this side and there is bad on this side also. So, then now I have to decide which to choose. So, for example, say a friend gave us some food to carry.

Can you keep this food with you? Let's say a friend gave us some sweets to keep. Can you keep this with you for some time? I don't have space in my luggage. And then say they gave us the food and we got some sweets.

We looked at the food and it was delicious. Eventually we ate it up. And then that friend said, can you do that for me? I can't find it.

I think somebody stole it from my bag. So, yeah, somebody stole it from my bag. That somebody was my own greed.

So, we may want to lie over there. So, this is a straightforward moral choice. This is good, this is bad.

And if we speak a lie, that's just because we don't want to look bad in their eyes. It's very clear what is right and what is wrong over here. But, suppose there were a situation, say, where there is a riot going on.

And say our friend belongs to the community that is being targeted in the riots. And that friend comes to our house. Please, please save me.

And then we take our friend and hide them in some closet in our home. And those rioters come and pound on our door. Is he there? No.

Should we speak the truth? Why not? What do you think? Is it that confusing? Yes. So, saving a friend's life is actually a greater value than just speaking the truth. So, there is good on one side.

Okay, I am speaking the truth. But, there is good on the other side that I am saving somebody's life. There is bad on one side.

Oh, I am speaking a lie over here. There is bad on the other side. Actually, I am costing this person's life.

So, there is good and bad on both sides. So, here we just need moral strength to do the right thing. But, here we need moral wisdom to know which is more right and which is more wrong.

And many of life's problems fall in this category. I hope the difference between moral and ethical is clear. And ethical problems, there is good on both sides.

But, which is the higher good, we have to decide that. So, the Gita, which is a part of the Bhagavatam, is actually guiding us in such situations. So, in fact, when Arjuna says, I can't fight.

Why is he saying I can't fight? Family relationships. Okay, that is one reason. Anything else? Sorry? His gurus are there on the other side.

Then, he has got simple reactions. Anything else? He has compassion. Unwanted progeny.

He doesn't want dynastic destruction basically. So, all those are specific reasons he is giving. But, actually underlying that, there is a dilemma.

And Arjuna is torn between two things. On one side is his Kshatriya dharma. As a warrior, he should be fighting.

But on the other side is his Kula dharma. These are members of his own Kula. And he thinks killing people of my Kula is not cool.

It's a terrible thing to do. His lips start becoming hot. I can't do this.

So, the idea is, some people think Arjuna became cowardly. Arjuna did not become cowardly. Because, not once did Arjuna express fear of his own death.

The entire first chapter, not even once, he said, I am afraid of my death, that's why I don't want to fight. If he has fear, he is afraid of doing the wrong thing. And he is not sure, what is the right thing over there.

So, there are two things and there could be arguments on both sides. You are a warrior, you have to fight. But, you are a member of your family, this is your family, you have to protect them.

What do you do at that time? So, Arjuna is caught in a very difficult situation. It's like, suppose there is a police cop, a very exemplary cop, heroic policeman. In India, we don't use the word cop, do we? In America, they use the word cop for policemen only.

Have you heard the word cop? They use it here also? Sorry? Police, yeah. Police, sorry? But, you know the word cop? Sorry? Newspapers, they use it. Anyway, so, there is a police person.

So, this policeman is very heroic and has caught many criminals, who have been very difficult and dangerous to catch. And he is so dangerous, he tries to run away, shoot him. And then he goes into that area and catches that criminal.

And he says, stop or I'll shoot you. And the criminal starts running away. And the policeman has raised his gun and the criminal slips and falls.

He falls, he rolls over. The criminal turns and he says, actually, this criminal is your long lost brother. What should he do? Should he act as if it's his police duty and shoot? Or should he act as if it's his brother's duty and not shoot? It's not an easy decision, isn't it? It's a difficult decision.

So, Arjuna is facing a dilemma like this. On one side is the Kshatriya Dharma. As a warrior, he should fight against aggressors.

But when those aggressors are his relatives, when those aggressors include his venerable elders, then what should he do at that time? Take this particular example. You can make it more complicated. That person who is running away is not his brother.

He is actually his uncle. A respected uncle who has been long lost. How can he shoot that person? Isn't it? So, Arjuna is caught in an ethical dilemma.

It's a difficult choice. So, with this background, Arjuna turns to Krishna and says, Please tell me, what is the right thing to do? When one is pulled by two duties and neither seems easier to follow, what does one do at that time? It's not easy to decide which is the right thing to do. So, this is an ethical dilemma.

So, with this, now let's look at the Kauravas and the Pandavas. Let's try to make a list of the wrongdoings. What wrongs did the Kauravas do? What wrong did the Pandavas do? Let's make a list and let's try to evaluate.

So, what are the wrongs that the Kauravas did? Let's start from the sequence beginning. Sorry? Desire of? Okay, so anybody can have any desire. We can't blame people for their desires.

If we started blaming people for desires, nobody would come out of the jail. Isn't it? What are the wrong things that they did? Okay, let's try to do it, whatever you can. I will put the numbers afterwards.

So, you say something? Yes, how did they try to kill him? Yes, so poison Bhima. Then they tried to disrobe Draupadi. Anything else? Wanted to send Pandavas? Wanted to send Pandavas? Okay, let's take it one point.

I am just trying to evaluate. Send the Pandavas out of where exactly? Okay, so they tried to actually burn the Pandavas. Isn't it? Burn the Pandavas, in fact it was not just the Pandavas and their mother.

They sent Pandavas for 13 years. Okay, so we could say defrauded or stole the kingdom. So, stole the Pandavas' kingdom.

So, they cheated the Pandavas of their kingdom and then sent them to a forest and then had them exiled. So, anything else? So, gambling. But how is that? Okay, cheated the Pandavas of their kingdom.

We will evaluate them one by one. Let's make a list of it. You said they refused to give five villages.

Now, is that a wrong thing to do? Well, you could say… They might have avoided war. They could have avoided war. You could say it's a foolish thing to do.

They could have settled the war. But refused to give even five villages. Okay, let's list it down.

We will see which are more serious. And avoid war. Okay, anything else? During the war, did they do anything wrong? What's wrong with that? War means people will be killed.

Sorry? Yeah. So, killed Abhimanyu unfairly. Six of them attacked simultaneously.

Six warriors, six maharatas attacked him together. How? By grabbing Krishna. Okay.

They attempted to arrest Krishna. So, that attempt to arrest itself is an insult. Isn't it? Some police come to somebody's house.

And they say that the police van comes to somebody's house. And they come and arrest you. Put handcuffs around the person.

At that time, their lawyer comes and stops them from being arrested. But still, the fact that handcuffs were put on their hands. That itself is humiliating.

That's insulting. Attempted to arrest Krishna. Okay.

So, these are some wrongs. Maybe something more will come up. But this is what it is.

Now, what are the wrongs that the Pandavas did? Did the Pandavas do anything wrong? Let's see. What were they? They took Dronacharya by giving Ashwathamaya's head. So, let's put it this way.

Lied to Drona. Lied to have Drona killed. Okay.

Anything else? Staked Draupadi. Okay. Staked Draupadi during gambling.

Let's evaluate this one by one. Sorry? Who's the lady? Okay. So, used Shikhandi to bring Bhishma.

They did actually kill him at that time. To fell Bhishma. That's when he actually fell down.

He died later. But, okay. Anything else? Which is the most infamous or famous incident? Yes.

Okay. What was unfair? Don't just say unfair because it's assessment. We'll assess it later.

What was it that they did? Lord Krishna turned the night into day. Control of the world. When was that? Turned night into day? In the evening, there was no war.

So, by the grace of Lord Krishna, the night delayed. And Arjuna got a chance to kill Arjuna. And Arjuna also covered all this.

Krishna covered the sun to let Arjuna kill Jaidrath. Okay. Killing Karna when he doesn't have any weapons.

Okay. Killed Karna while he was not on his chariot. He was chariotless.

And, okay. And not ready. He is not exactly unarmed.

He still had his bow and arrow, but he was not fighting. Okay, we'll discuss the incident. Anything else? One more major incident? Okay, yes.

So, Ashwatthama killed sleeping warriors. Sleeping soldiers, including Pandava's sons. That was especially a terrible thing to do.

Anything else from the Kaurava side or the Pandava side? Pandava's five-year-old son was married. Okay, see. You could go into the ethics of many incidents.

But was that a wrong they did to the Kauravas? We are trying to compare, are the Pandavas as bad as the Kauravas? So, there are many things in the Mahabharata which we could question. In that particular case, it was Vyasade who said that this is Lord Shiva's blessing from a previous life. And that is being fulfilled over here.

So, it was exceptional, but it is not wrong. Because it was done with the blessings of the sages. But anyway, that had nothing to do with the Kauravas specifically.

Anything else? No, not a question. We'll make a list. We'll look at the questions afterwards.

One important incident? Karna has Shaktile Asura, but Krishna did forget it. So, Karna was not respected, although he is a Kshatriya son. He has Kshatriya Astra to kill Arjuna, but Krishna did.

In the daytime, he has forgotten that Astra here. That's Karna's mistake. Krishna did that.

How could… See, that is… Anybody forgets anything, he can blame Krishna for that. You know, if we are going to hold Krishna responsible for that, then we can hold Krishna responsible for everything. That was… Actually, it's not that so much he forgot.

He just got so caught up. He was so, in one sense, when he went to the Virat, he had the Shakti Astra, but he was so overconfident or he was so careless. He didn't think he will meet Arjuna over there.

That's why he didn't have the Shakti Astra. And then when Ghatotkach attacked, at that time, he got so agitated by the power of Ghatotkach, he thought that, I have to save the day right now. And that's why he used the Shakti Astra.

Now, Krishna did tell Ghatotkach, go and attack Karna. But that's just a strategy. There is nothing wrong in that.

See, in a war, there is a strategy. It's… Like in cricket, if a team is batting, and they want to tie their batting, they could declare their innings now. But they don't declare, and they just keep batting and keep batting so that the opponent team gets tired.

And when their fielders are tired, their batsmen are also getting tired, and then they come to bat, they are tired. That's strategy. That's just intelligence.

There is nothing wrong in that. So, Krishna sending Ghatotkach to fight against Karna, that was the way Ghatotkach threatened Karna. Ghatotkach was over-scared.

A good Karna had killed Ghatotkach without using Shakti Astra, maybe he could have. But he panicked at that time. Whatever went through his mind, he used it.

He used the Shakti Astra. And then he didn't have it for killing Arjuna. There is nothing wrong in that.

See, there are strategies which have to be used. And strategies are not considered wrong. If you look at cricket, for example, if a batsman can't play short pitch balls, can't play bouncers, the ballers deliberately bowl bouncers to that batsman.

Is that a wrong thing to do? No, that's your weakness, and the opponent side will exploit your weakness. That's just strategy. That's just intelligence.

Okay, so let's forget about Ashwathama right now. Because that was almost after the war got over. He tried to use Ashwathama to kill.

Ashwathama tried to use it against Uttara. That was almost after the war was over. But let's focus on the Kauravas and the Pandavas primarily.

So, one more incident is, where, yes? Pandavas adapted to Yudha. Pandavas? They made fun of Yudha. Okay, that's a wrong thing.

Let's look at it. That's a good incident to evaluate. So, Pandavas laughed at Duryodhana and he fell.

Yes. And then, the final battle? Pandavas built the Mayasabha. How is that a battle? And Mayasabha… Hey, come on.

It's like, I have money, and I built a house bigger than you. And you feel envious of that. So, am I to be blamed that I built a bigger house than you? How can you blame… Just say, somebody has greater ability than somebody else.

Say, Rohit Sharma plags better than Virat Kohli. Virat Kohli feels bad. So, is that Virat Kohli's fault or Rohit Sharma's fault? You should not feel bad.

You are on the same team. Isn't it? It's just one person performs better than another. There can be rivalry.

But that does not mean that the person who performs better is to be blamed. The Pandavas did not build the Mayasabha to humiliate Duryodhana. That was not their purpose.

That was just… They built because that's what the Mayadana, when he was saved, he offered a gift to them. And that's what they built at that time. So, there's one more incident which you… Yes, please.

Bhima used his club to fill Duryodhana on the roadside. Yes, that is the one. Bhima hit Duryodhana on the thigh, below the waist.

And that is considered unfair. So, yeah. Okay, Krishna raised his chakra.

That is… Now, that is almost like a… It is actually sequentially. It comes over here. It comes… Krishna raised his chakra.

Well, it's marginally wrong, but let's look at it. So, basically, you can say the Pandavas did something wrong. And now, are these wrongs equal? That's what we'll try to evaluate.

And you may say, on what basis are we going to evaluate? They say, okay, we are devotees of Krishna. Pandavas are devotees of Krishna. So, Pandavas are always the good people.

So, we'll defend the Pandavas. And Kauravas are not devotees of Krishna. So, Kauravas are bad people.

We're going to criticize the Kauravas. So, is it going to be like that? Well, it shouldn't be like that. So, are there some objective criteria by which we can evaluate? So, let's try to look at this.

Okay? So, basically, this whole story, this whole analysis begins with long before that there is a dispute over kingdom, over succession. So, Dhritarashtra is the elder brother. And he is blind.

So, he cannot become the king. Then Pandu becomes the king. But then Pandu retires.

And then Dhritarashtra becomes the king. And then neither of them seem to be able to have children. So, in the forest, Pandu uses a yoga ritual by which Kunti prays to the devatas.

And then she gets children. She gets the five Pandavas one by one. And Gandhari is blessed by Vyasadeva.

And she has Duryodhana and the Kauravas. So, now, Yudhishthira is born slightly before Duryodhana. So, therefore, we could say there is some dispute over here.

Dhritarashtra was the king, then Dhritarashtra's son could become the king. But Dhritarashtra was not the king, Pandu had become the king. Pandu had expanded the kingdom.

And Dhritarashtra was the caretaker king. So, from there, Pandu's son, Yudhishthira, is the lesser to become the king. So, we could say there is some ambiguity, some conflict about who should become the king.

There is some tension. And that is understandable to some extent. Now, when this happens, at that time, how do you resolve the things? So, if you consider, there will be, sometimes there is tension.

Will I inherit this property? Will you inherit this property? And the kingdom is a big thing. But, while resolving this, when the Pandavas come to the kingdom, the Pandavas just come because their father has died. And the sages tell them that, tell their mother, Kunti, that the forest has many dangerous animals.

It is no place for a person like you to be there. For a woman, a lone woman with small children to be there. Better go back to your kingdom.

And the sages go back, take Kunti with them, escort her back to the kingdom. Now, technically speaking, I will make things a little bit more complex and we will see how much we can resolve this. That, it was known that Pandu, because of a curse, could not unite with his wives.

And that's why he could not get a child. But in such situations, there was a ritual called Niyod. So, in the past, having a child was considered very important for succession.

So then, if for some reason, the man could not procreate, then, some other respectable person would be asked, only for that purpose, within particular times when the woman is likely to have a child, to unite with the blessings of the family. And after that, that man and the woman would have no contact with each other. So, that was the principle within Dharma.

And in fact, that's how Dhritarashtra and Pandu themselves have been born. So, it is a respected ritual. Now, in this case, Pandu had asked Kunti that you should do this.

The sages are there over here in the forest. And I request the sages, it is important for us to have children so that the kingdom goes on. And then Kunti had said that I have this blessing from Durvasa that I can invoke the gods.

And she invoked the gods. And that's how they got a child. But they got three plus two children.

Three from Kunti. Kunti invoked the gods for Madri also. That's how they got the five children.

Now, somebody could have questioned the parentage. Whose children were this? And they didn't know. But they knew that Pandu could not beget a child.

So, the sages went with Kunti to assure the family, members of the Kuru family that Pandu had approached us for yoga. And then they had yoga with the Devatas. So, basically, Duryodhana would sometimes question the parentage of the Pandavas.

But apart from Duryodhana, nobody raised any questions about it. Because the sages had no vested interests. The sages had no reason to lie.

So, basically, Duryodhana had thought that I am going to be the prince. I am going to be the king. Where did these Pandavas come from? They came from Himalaya.

So, from that time, his insecurity started. And then, he thought, okay, this Yudhisthira is older than me, but I am stronger than him. But then he found the very thing that he was proud of, his strength, there was someone among the Pandavas who challenged that.

Who was that? Bhima. Now, Bhima was just playful. Bhima was strong enough.

And sometimes when they would play, Duryodhana would try to attack Bhima. And Bhima was just so strong, Bhima would just pick up Duryodhana and throw him away. And nobody had dared to do this to Duryodhana.

Who do you think you are? Like in school, if there is some bully, some gunda, and everybody is afraid of that person. And then some new boy comes to school and picks up this gunda and throws him away. Oh, he cut his nose.

He felt humiliated. Now, Bhima had no ill-intention over there. He was just playing and Bhima was stronger.

So, Duryodhana felt very insecure. He felt angry. Now, his emotions are understandable.

It's a very important principle. In our situation or our past, it can explain our emotions. So, Duryodhana feeling insecure, Duryodhana feeling envious, that's understandable.

Our past can explain our emotions, but our past can't excuse our actions. The two are very different things. If I feel insecure, it's okay.

But just because I feel envious of you, what happened? Okay. Some mystical connection between that and this? Okay. Or is that project of feeling insecure? Oh, okay.

Some loose connection? Okay. Anyway, so see, Duryodhana feeling insecure is understandable. But then what did he do? He tried to poison Bhima.

It's a horrible thing to do. Somebody is a competitor, so there is a difference between rivals and enemies. Rivals and enemies are not the same thing.

Have you heard this word, rivals? Have you heard the word enemies? So what is the difference between rivals and enemies? Say for example, say India's best batsman is Virat Kohli. Australia's best batsman is who is that? Steve Smith or someone, whoever it is. So now, are they enemies or are they rivals? Rivals.

Rivals means both will try to bat as well, both will try to if there is a championship, both will want the batsman of the match-up. But it is not that that the Indian batsman is going to put poison in the food of the other batsman or the other batsman is going to put poison in the food of the other batsman. No.

That would make them enemies. So rivalry is where both have the same goal. Same goal to achieve something.

And that leads to competition. But enemy is goal is to destroy the other person only. So in school there will be two students both want to come first in class.

But to come first in class one student hires a gunda so that the gunda beat up the other student and the other student can't get to the exams. And the first student comes first. Now, that is not to be done.

That's going from rivalry to enmity. So Bhima and Duryodhana were rivals. That's what they were supposed to be.

Both of them were strong. But what did Duryodhana do? He tried to poison Bhima. This is just too much.

Just because somebody is better than you, that doesn't give the right to destroy them. Some people say that Duryodhana was a good person. Shakuni made him bad.

Well, that's actually bad logic. Why? Because Shakuni was not in the picture when Duryodhana made the plan to kill Bhima by poisoning him. So it was not that Duryodhana was good and Shakuni made him bad.

The reality that Duryodhana was bad and Shakuni made him worse. So this was just completely unacceptable. So Bhima tried to poison them.

Bhima was poisoned. But even after that was done, the gunda said, let's not do it. Let's not dig into the issue.

Bhima wanted to go and confront Duryodhana. So Duryodhana said, let's not dig into the issue about this. It's our own family.

Maybe he was feeling jealous, maybe he was feeling insecure. Let's keep a low profile and let's be on the alert. So they did escape the issue.

They tried to keep it inside the family. You know, sometimes it happens. Somebody inside the family does something bad to somebody else in the family.

Now, I will not allow the police to complain against you. Others will say, okay, don't do that, you know. It's our own family's thing that will be spoilt.

So that was what? And they did that but unfortunately that didn't lead to the Pandavas did not escalate it but Duryodhana escalated it. What did Duryodhana do next? Sorry? Emotion? Water? That's the same thing. Same incident.

He had a poison and tied him up and threw him into water. But the next incident was where he made a actually manipulated his father so that the Pandavas could be sent to the Lakshadri, to the house of Lak. So he tried to kill one of them first and when he could not successfully kill one of them he decided to kill all five of them.

And only all five of them even their mother and their mother had never tried to harm him. Their mother was a respectable Lakshadriya and went to protect her. So this was you do one bad thing and then you do not just repeat the bad thing but do something far worse.

So here each time we see the Pandavas are not responding. The Pandavas are not responding but the Kauravas are doing things worse and worse and worse. And the Pandavas survived that by their intelligence and by Vidura's guidance and then the Pandavas won the hand of Dronacharya.

Now one thing which I didn't mention is that after that the Pandavas came back. Now Duryodhana had no desire for the Pandavas to come back. But Bhishma told Dhritarashtra that already the citizens are accusing you that you were a part of the conspiracy to kill the Pandavas.

You are being defamed. Now you have an opportunity to remove the bad name that has come to your dynasty, to our dynasty. And if you don't care for the bad name at least consider that now they are Duryodhana's sons-in-law.

Earlier they were just almost like orphans. No big supporter for them. But now Dhritarashtra would not want his daughter to live in poverty when her husbands were princes.

And Dhritarashtra was an awful rival. So Dhritarashtra called the Pandavas back. But then he said I'll give you half the kingdom.

But which half did he give? Khandavrastha. So it was here if you go gave barren half of the kingdom. It's like say you know say you know in a family two children they come back from school.

Maybe they had a late night assignment or they come late at night. And mother says I have these two chapatis. I'll give one chapati to each of you.

But one chapati is fresh and the other chapati is dry and stale and smelly. And he says okay I'll give one chapati to each of you. So is that fair? No.

So it is like in name saying it is fair but it is outrageous. See in the west there are stories like Snow White and the stepmother, evil stepmother, Cinderella and all these stories where there is a stepmother, she has her own daughter and she has some Cinderella is like a stepdaughter. So she externally appears to be equal but it is like step-daughterly treatment.

You treat unfairly. But the Vandavas accept that. See time and time unfair things are happening to the Vandavas and they are accepting it.

They are trying their best to avoid escalating the issue. The Vandavas went to Khandav and by working extremely hard and by Krishna's mercy, they made Khandav into a flourishing kingdom. And then it became such a flourishing kingdom that it became better than Hastinapura.

This was their hard work. And then they performed Rajasuri yajna. And then when Duryodhana came, he saw how much wealth the Vandavas have.

So he became jealous because of that. And when he became jealous at that time he said I have to do something. Now everybody went back but he said I will stay.

Now this was what was he going to do by staying on? It is a dangerous thing to do. Say if somebody is an alcoholic and they go to a bar now they don't want to drink alcohol but they are in the bar now and if they are drinking what happens? They stay on after everyone has gone. All that is likely to happen is that they are going to drink more and more.

So he stayed there and the more he saw the opulence of the Vandavas palace, the more insecure he felt. Like some popular retellings of the Mahabharata, it is said that when he fell Draupadi laughed, the Vandavas laughed at him. And Draupadi said the son of the blind is blind.

And the actual Mahabharata Draupadi does not say anything like this. This is just an exaggeration. So did the Vandavas laugh at him? Yeah.

But what had happened was he was before that putting on so much airs. He was disrespectful to everyone. He was snapping at the servants.

He was trying to act as if he is completely unimpressed by all the wealth that the Vandavas have. So you know sometimes in Hindi like somebody is just bragging a lot and somebody is very proud and bragging a lot and that person acts as if he is a great person and that person slips and falls. So then it serves you right.

So normally if somebody just slips and falls, we will go and help that person. We won't laugh at that person. But somebody is putting on a lot of airs.

Somebody is acting very proud and bragging a lot and that person falls. It serves you right. You feel it.

The Vandavas laughed. Draupadi laughed. And that was insulting for Draupadi.

Understandable. But if he resisted and sent someone to the servants and gave them cloth and he had to clean himself up and change his clothes. But Duryodhana felt humiliated.

Now, yes, he did feel humiliated. Maybe you could say this was what the Pandavas did wrong. But it was Duryodhana's behaviour which was what prompted the whole thing.

He didn't have to stay on. He stayed on. And then he slipped and fell.

It is a mayasabha. He couldn't figure out what was what. The Pandavas did not create this to cause him any trouble.

But even if he felt humiliated, it is like a joke. You could make a joke on someone else. Say, in April Fool, somebody puts something which looks like a snake in our drawer.

We get scared and they laugh at us. Then we want to get back at them and we may put something which looks like a snake and they get scared and we laugh at them. But somebody puts a real snake over there and the snake bites and the person dies and we laugh at them.

That is completely disproportionate, isn't it? Yudhishthir, Duryodhana said, they humiliated me, I must be humiliated. So, he had them invited for a gambling match. Now, we could say Yudhishthir made a mistake in gambling.

Well, yes and no. It is that just after the war of the Prachu Yagya got over, at that time, Yudhishthir went to Gyan Sathe and he said, O sage, thank you for deciding over our sacrifice. It is by your blessings that the sacrifice concluded successfully.

Please bless me so that I can lead the kingdom peacefully and prosperously. And Gyan Sathe became great and he said, O king, I see a great war in the future. I see much disturbance in the future.

The disturbance will culminate in a great war. And after that war, you will have a peaceful and prosperous kingdom. Yudhishthir became very grim on doing this.

He started thinking that I don't want a war to occur. I will do everything possible to avoid a war. So, he made his own resolution, almost like a vow.

He said, a war, what is the cause of a war? A war is caused by unresolved conflicts. When two people have some conflicts and they can't resolve it, then that causes war. And what prevents conflicts from being resolved is disregard of elders or disobedience to elders.

See, basically, two people have a conflict and they both go to an elder. And the elder says, this is how we should resolve it. Now, if both sides respect the elder, then the conflict can be resolved.

So, but if one side or both sides, they don't respect the elder. They say, you are unfair. You don't understand the situation.

Then, the issue gets escalated. Isn't it? So, in the past, elders played the role what judges play today in legal system. It becomes much more complicated because we go to attorneys and it becomes legally complicated.

But the principle is, there is some authority. And if we accept the authority's wording, then the conflict can be resolved. So, Yudhishthir said, I will always obey my elders.

And in this way, I will avoid conflict. Avoid conflict that will lead to war. This was his resolution.

But unfortunately, he didn't consider what kind of endorsement he had. So, Duryodhan decided through Shakuni's instigation to have the Pandavas brought for a gambling match. He persuaded his father.

And his father pressured his half-brother Vidura. So, now, Yudhishthir had just taken a resolve that, I will always obey my elders. And then one elder, Dhritarashtra, who was like his father figure, in the absence of his father, sent another father figure, Vidura, to ask him to come for a gambling match.

Yudhishthir had no desire to gamble. But he just couldn't say no. And that's how Yudhishthir came for gambling.

It was a rigged gambling match. Because, normally, in gambling, it is two people who are equals in some ways, are meant to play. So, Yudhishthir and Duryodhan had equal wealth.

And both of them were amateurs. Amateurs means non-professionals. There are so many people playing cricket on the streets.

They play cricket more or less for fun. Or some kids may play boxing. They play it for fun.

But suppose somebody who is an ordinary street boxer is put against Mike Tyson. It would be horribly unfair, isn't it? One is a professional, and the other is just a complete amateur. So, having Shakuni play on behalf of Duryodhan, that itself was utterly unfair.

So, it was in this unfair gambling match that, one by one, everything was stolen into the Pandavas. And some people say that Karna was a good person. But maybe, but definitely it was that he did not remain a good person.

By Duryodhana's association, he did become contaminated. And in this gambling match, when finally Yudhishthir, after losing everything, staked Draupadi. And Draupadi was last.

At that time, it was Karna who suggested that Draupadi is your maid now. She is now your slave. Drag her into the assembly and have her disrobed.

It was a horrendous thing to do. And he said, you know, she has five wives and five husbands. A woman who has five husbands is already like a prostitute.

What's wrong with your disrobing? Now, calling any woman a prostitute, a respectable, honorable woman like Draupadi, that's horrible. Akshatriya, Karna always wanted the honor of being Akshatriya. But when he had the opportunity, rather than acting in honorable way, Akshatriya is one who protects women.

He acted in a terribly dishonorable way. But to his credit, Karna later regretted what he did. He told Krishna as well as Bhishma later, that in 50s, Duryodhana spoke those things which I should not have spoken.

Do you think that Duryodhana regretted what he did? Yeah, Duryodhana also regretted. When Duryodhana did wrong things, he also regretted that none of his wrong plans were successful. He tried to poison Bhima, it didn't work.

He tried to have the Pandavas burned, it didn't work. He regretted that his plan didn't work. He didn't regret that I did something wrong.

But now, they decided to disown her. Now, even if she is their slave, slaves have to be treated respectfully. It is a horrible thing to do.

Generally, if some man molests a woman or violates a woman, generally, they would do it along some dark street where there is nobody to give a witness. Because they have some fear of the law. But if somebody does such a monstrous act in public, in front of everyone, that means that they have no fear of the law.

If somebody goes to a police station or a court and there does something like this, that means not only they don't have any fear of the law, the law has fear of them. That's why they can do something like this. So, this was a horrible situation.

All the elders were there. All those who are meant to dispense justice are there. And in front of them, he is doing something like this.

So, we can just imagine how much depraved, how much wicked, how much demoniac such an action is. In one sense, we could say, killing the Pandavas and their mother is far more vicious than just disrobing someone. But it's not just disrobing someone.

Those activities were done in the dark, not publicly. He had someone else do it so that nobody would blame him for doing it. But here he was doing it in public and that's far more dangerous.

So, the Kauravas' bad actions kept doing it worse and worse. And now there are many other things that they did. We can't do an exhaustive catalogue of all of those things.

But eventually, as you mentioned, even after all that had happened, the Pandavas lived the exile and the Pandavas came back. They were ready to settle peacefully. They said, Krishna, please try to settle peacefully.

And Krishna himself came. Now, Krishna coming shows how serious they were about the peace proposal. They right now say, between Russia and Ukraine, a war is going on.

Now, if the Ukrainian president personally goes to Russia or the Russian president personally goes to Ukraine, that would mean they are really serious about the peace effort. And at that time, say, the Russian president goes to Ukraine and Ukraine tries to arrest him over there. That would just get the whole nation outraged.

They would probably use nuclear weapons immediately to destroy Ukraine. That's what they tried to do with Krishna. And to his credit, Krishna did not even run away from his terms.

Krishna had said that I will give you my Narayana Sinha. And Krishna still kept his Narayana Sinha with him. You dare to arrest me? I don't have to give my Narayana Sinha to you.

Krishna would have said, you tried to arrest me? I don't have to stick to my terms. I will raise my weapons and I will fight against you. Krishna stuck to his principles.

So this is what the history of all the wrongs that the Kauravas did. Now, when we come to the incidents. So basically, when we are trying to understand, we are trying to weigh the wrongs.

Who did what wrong and in what context. So basically, we can say a wrongdoing, it can be evaluated in many different ways. One is that who started it? Isn't it? Like two people are caught in a fight.

So the police may arrest both of them, put them in handcuffs. But the question will be, who started it? Who did the first blow? As in that person insulted, okay, but what did you do before that? So if we consider here, who started it? The first poisoning was done by who? It is clear that he started it. Not only he started it, who repeated it? Who aggravated it? Who aggravated it? That means who kept doing things worse? Again it was the Pandavas each time were dominating.

None of the time the Pandavas tried to escalate things. Who aggravated it? Each time it was the Kauravas. Now, let's go into the war.

And we won't be able to go into detail of each of the incidents. But we'll try to quickly overview the incidents. That with respect to on the ninth day, Krishna lifted the wheel to attack Vishnu.

There's a long history behind that. But now, is the wheel really considered to be a weapon? For Vishnu, it's a weapon. But for most people, a wheel is actually very difficult to use to attack someone.

A wheel itself is heavy and a wheel generally is not very sharp. Because if the wheel is too sharp, the chariot wheel, if it's very sharp, the sharp edges will get worn out when the chariot moves on the ground. And then eventually it will become not very useful.

So, wheel is generally not considered very sharp. So, normally a wheel would not be considered to be a weapon. So, Krishna had made a vow that I won't lift any weapon.

Then he lifted a wheel. It was at the borderline whether it's a weapon or not. And on top of that, he actually never used it.

And he didn't use it not because the opposite side stopped him. It was his own side someone stopped him. Arjuna only stopped him.

So, they tried to do something to the borderline of doing something wrong and then they stopped it. Now, so, if we consider after that, Krishna's wheel lifting. So, we can say it is borderline wrong.

It is definitely not anything serious. Then the next day, when they used Shikhandi, this was on the 9th day, on the 10th day, they used Shikhandi. Now, when they used Shikhandi also, at this particular point, there are two things to consider.

First is that Shikhandi was not a woman. Shikhandi was a man. It was Shikhandi had been a woman in the previous life.

And it was Bhishma who had his own principles. That I will not attack someone who was a woman before. Okay, that's his principle.

So, if it's your principle, that's okay. But then, that if sticking to your principles becomes a weakness, that's not the point of his problem. On top of that, it was Bhishma himself who gave this idea to the Pandavas.

On the 9th night, Yudhishtira and the Pandavas went to Bhishma and Bhishma told him, this is the way you can bring me down. And, it was not that Bhishma could not retaliate. Now, Bhishma did not shoot at Shikhandi, but Bhishma was still attacking others.

So, Arjuna, from behind Bhishma, we had Shikhandi shot at Bhishma. And Bhishma fell. So now, we could again call this as borderline wrong.

Why borderline? There are two reasons. There is no principle in law, in the war codes, that you cannot exploit the weakness of your opponent. But this was a weakness that Bhishma himself had created.

So, it's like a batsman saying that, you know, if there is a particular kind of war, I will not hit it first. Well, that's your principle. That doesn't stop the bowler from using that technique.

If the bowler uses it, that is up to them. So, and Bhishma himself told. So, it is not that the Pandavas did it.

It's something borderline, but you can't call it really wrong. Now, after that, was 13th day, when Abhimanyu was killed. And this was not a borderline wrong thing.

This was totally wrong. So, six warriors attacking Abhimanyu simultaneously, that was utterly wrong. And, it just showed their weakness.

They all tried to challenge Abhimanyu initially one by one. And none of them could succeed. Now, Abhimanyu was young, which is 16.

And normally, even if somebody has to fight against one warrior, after second warrior, third warrior, fourth warrior, that itself will exhaust the person. Because that person can, if they are defeated, they can go and rest and come back. But this person has to keep fighting again and again and again.

Isn't it? So, he was getting tired. And still, they could not win. And then six of them attacked him simultaneously.

And then they destroyed his weapon. They destroyed his shield. They destroyed his armour.

They killed his chariot here. They destroyed his chariot. He had practically nothing left.

He was trying to use his bow and arrow. He was trying to shoot one person. Another person just cut off the string of his bow.

He was just left with nothing. So, this was almost the most monstrous thing that they did. And Abhimanyu was like them.

Like the generation of their children. It was all of them who killed him. Now, on the 14th day, Jaidrath was killed.

So, now there is a… So, Krishna covered the sun at that time. And then they lowered their weapons and Krishna showed the sun is not covered. And then they…Karjuna shot an arrow and killed Jaidrath.

So, when this happened, this is more of a trick. Is it cheating? Tricking and cheating are not the same thing. So, tricking means, you know, sometimes say batsman is running towards the wicket to complete a run.

And the wicketkeeper just stands looking as if the ball is nowhere nearby. And batsman then thinks, okay, you know, the ball is not coming. The batsman slows down.

And suddenly the ball comes. Now, that is a trick. But, it is not considered cheating.

That just, you get the player to slow down and then use that. So, it's like a batsman baller comes running very fast and then bowls an extremely slow ball. And the batsman swings his bat and the bat is high up in the stand and the ball slowly comes and runs on the stand.

So, it's like creating an appearance of doing one thing and doing another thing. That's just a trick. That is done all the time.

So, you could call it a deception. But, that's again, it's a trick. It's a strategy that is used.

So, like, while in a boxing match, one batsman might appear very tired. And the boxer doesn't seem to hit back. And the attacking boxer is hitting, hitting, hitting and the attacking boxer thinks that, you know, this person is completely tired.

And slightly lowers his blow and one knockout punch! And the match is gone. And you should not have lowered your guard at that time. So, it was, it was, yes, it was certainly a trick.

But, trick is not cheating. It was the Pandavas, you don't have to lower the guard. And in fact, you know, there is a Bhakti explanation and there is a Karmakant explanation.

The Karmakant explanation is that there was a Surya-Karna at that time. The solar eclipse and that's how the sun got covered temporarily. And then the eclipse went away and the sun was still there for a few years.

And in fact, historians try to calculate that. Like, there are descriptions of when eclipses occurred during the Mahabharata. And then they calculate, okay, this eclipse and between these eclipses, there was only this period of, say, three months.

And then they try to calculate how many years before the two eclipses occurred with this much time in between them. And by that, they try to calculate the date when Mahabharata actually occurred. This is a field of Archeoastronomy.

So, either way, it's a trick, it's not cheating. I hope this difference is clear between Dhruti and Dhruti. Now, on the 15th day, there was Drona was killed.

So, here, it seems the Kauravas, the Pandavas clearly did something terrible. They lied. Well, yes and no.

Generally speaking, whenever any right or wrong action is to be decided, there are three factors to be considered. What was done, why it was done, the content of the action, the intent of the action, and consequence. What resulted from the action? These three factors need to be considered to decide what is right and what is wrong.

So, from that perspective, from the context perspective, they lied. So, you could say that was a wrong thing. But why did they have to lie? Because, Duryodhana's constant criticism of Drona, you are the guru of Arjuna, you should be defeating him.

You are being weak, you are being partial. You don't want to win. That's why you are not fighting wholeheartedly.

That constant criticism and insight that Drona was being subjected to from Duryodhana got to Drona eventually. And then, in his despair to win, Drona started using celestial weapons against ordinary soldiers. It is like, a war is going on and one side suddenly starts using nuclear weapons.

It is not interesting to do. It is just something not to be done. Now, it is possible that when one warrior uses celestial weapons, other warrior also uses celestial weapons.

And at that time, that celestial weapon ends up killing soldiers. That happens. That's not wrong.

But, to use celestial weapons straight against ordinary soldiers, when nobody among them has celestial weapons, that is a horrendous thing. It was so wrong, in fact, that Mahabharata describes immediately there are sages who appeared in the sky. And they don't know, what are you doing? Stop this right now.

Stop it. Stop it. It's enough.

You have done a terrible wrong. Now, Drona was troubled by that. Now, after this, Krishna told Yudhishthira, if you don't stop Drona now, he will destroy your entire army today.

It's important now, what was the Pandavas' plan? As far as Arjuna was concerned, his plan was to arrest Drona, not kill Drona. His plan was that if Drona lowers his weapon, then he will have him arrested. But, as soon as Drona heard that Ashwathama is killed, he lowered his weapon.

So, Dhrishtadyumna, who had been trying to kill Drona for a long time, Dhrishtadyumna had been born, and his father Drupada had performed a yajna so that Dhrishtadyumna would be able to kill Drona. And Dhrishtadyumna had come nowhere near killing Drona. And he had become increasingly frustrated by that.

And then, on that very day, in front of Dhrishtadyumna, Drona had killed his father. Drona had killed Drupada. So, Dhrishtadyumna was totally frustrated.

Not only could I not fulfill my father's desire, not only could I not fulfill the purpose of my father in giving me birth, but I could not even protect my father. And that's why, when he saw Drona lowering his weapons and sitting down in yoga posture for meditation, he just charged forward with a sword. Now, his action was so terrible that warriors from both sides, the Gaura side as well as the Pandava side, screamed to him, Stop! Stop! Don't do this! Dhrishtadyumna screamed, Stop! But everything happened so fast.

Dhrishtadyumna was the closest to Drona. He charged into Drona, caught Drona by his hair and locked off his head. And when he did this, the Gaura's expansion ran away from battlefield.

Arjuna ran up to Dhrishtadyumna and was about to attack Dhrishtadyumna. How could Dhrishtadyumna do this? He was your Guru. He was meditating.

He was defenceless. At that time, almost interval civil war broke out among the Maldavas. So here, the key point is the killing of Drona was a terrible thing.

But it was not a cold-blooded conspiracy. The disrobing of Draupadi, the burning of the Maldavas, that was a cold-blooded conspiracy. The killing of Drona was a bad thing.

But it was a hot-headed. What does it mean cold-blooded? Cold-blooded means calculated. Hot-headed means angry.

It was a hot-headed individual act. It was not a cold-blooded collective act. It has a big problem with the truth.

Now, after that, on the 17th day, Karna was killed. Was it the mistake of Kunti? Kunti did go to tell Karna. But Karna told her not to tell the Pandavas.

She could not listen to them. But Karna said, you will always have five sons. I will not kill you or any of your other four sons.

I will kill one of them. So, we will talk about Kunti a little later. Now, there is a difference between something which is wrong and something which is criminal.

I hope the difference is clear. There is something which is immoral. Say like, somebody drinks.

That may be immoral to drink. But it is not illegal to drink. But to drink and drive, that is illegal.

So, there is a difference between the immoral and the illegal. So, even if Kunti thinks it was wrong, that was just immoral. It is not even called immoral.

That is a minor wrong. It is not a serious wrong. But we will come to that a little later.

But let us move forward here. Now, when Karna was killed, actually speaking, Karna's chariot started going into the ground. And he tried to get the chariot out of the ground.

And he was not able to get it out of the ground. And while he was trying to pull it out, he called out to Arjuna and said, Arjuna, remember the codes of morality and do not entertain thoughts that are entertained only by cowards. Do not attack me while I am engaged elsewhere.

Arjuna, nobody spoke. And at that time, Krishna spoke. Oh, Karna, it is fortunate indeed that you remember the codes of morality today.

He said that evil people forget the codes of morality when they have to do evil. And remember those codes only to save themselves. Was it by your codes of morality that you joined with five other warriors and tried to kill 16-year-old Abhimanyu? Was it by the codes of morality that you suggested that Draupadi be dragged to the assembly and disrobe? Was it by the codes of morality that you participated in the conspiracy to have the Pandavas and their mother killed? Was it by the codes of morality that you laughed as Shakuni robbed the Pandavas of all their freedom? If that was morality, Arjuna will use that same morality today to kill you.

And Krishna told Arjuna, Shoot! Now, this particular situation where, now what is the unfair thing about it? The unfair thing is two things. Karna is not having his weapons ready and Karna is not on his chariot. So, Karna being chariot-less, that if you consider that same situation, Arjuna had been on the 14th day, Abhimanyu had been on the 13th day and Arjuna himself had been left on the 17th day.

So, when was Abhimanyu on the 13th day? And six of them attacked me. So, Abhimanyu was chariot-less and still they attacked me. On the 14th day, when Arjuna was trying to lead Jayantrath, at that time, their horses got so tired that Krishna said, Your horses cannot move any more forward.

They need some rest. So, Arjuna used some stick powers and created a lake with grass and Krishna said, Bravo! And Krishna took the horses there and he fed the horses and while the horses rested and recovered, Arjuna was on the ground and the Kauravas started charging on him from all sides and Arjuna was whirling around and fighting and protecting himself. So, at that time, Arjuna did not say, Hey, I am on the ground.

It is unfair to attack a warrior who is on the ground. It was a brutal fight. And on that very day, earlier when Karna was attacking Arjuna, so, there was a snake warrior, Ashwasi.

He entered into Karna's home and when Karna shot the arrow towards Arjuna, Arjuna thought, This is just an ordinary arrow. My armor will take care of it. So, he did not really bother about that.

So, when that arrow came forward, Krishna recognized this is the Sarvastra and Krishna banged his foot on the chariot and at that time, the chariot sank into the ground. When the chariot sank into the ground, the arrow that was meant to cut off Arjuna's head knocked off his crown. And Arjuna's chariot then was under the ground and Arjuna told Krishna, Oh, stop, stop, don't shoot me now.

Arjuna jumped down of the chariot, lifted up the chariot quickly, got it out of the hole because when Krishna had pounded his foot on the ground, the chariot had sunk in suddenly. So, Arjuna had to get it out. So, the situation that Karna had been in, Karna was now in, Arjuna had been in a similar situation.

So, it was a brutal war and nothing was done to Karna that had not been done to him before. So, we could say it was unfair but that same unfairness had been done before by the Kauravas. Okay.

And then after that, Duryodhana was killed. So, now this is, so we could say it is unfair but it was fair payback. You know payback, payback means Jaisi Karni, Vaisi Varni.

Jo tumne kiya hai, tumhare saath kiya hai. It was a fair payback. So, now Duryodhana being killed, what had happened was, it had become like a rigged match.

What do I mean by a rigged match over here? That, see, by Gandhari's intervention, by Gandhari giving Duryodhana a blessing, now whatever Bhima would do, he could not defeat Duryodhana. Isn't it? He had become invincible. So, it's like say a cricket match is going on and somebody just comes in and third party changes the rules that this batsman, even if this batsman is clean bowled, even if this batsman's ball hits the leg, even if this person is caught, even if this person is run out, whatever you do, this batsman is never going to be declared out.

Now, what is the bowler to do? The bowler may bowl the best bowling spell of their life but the rules are changed and the match is rigged so that the batsman may never be declared out. What is the batsman bowler to do at that time? That was Bhima's situation. Bhima fought like never before.

Why is Bhima hit Duryodhana with such force in a fair match? He do with such force that a mountain would have cracked apart and the force was such that Duryodhana was flung far away but when Duryodhana fell down and landed on the ground, he just grinned. Nothing happened. On the other hand, Duryodhana was not a poor fighter.

Duryodhana was also hitting Bhima and Bhima was getting injured. At one particular point, Duryodhana landed a severe blow on Bhima and Bhima was severely injured by that and Bhima somehow did not show any motion at all and that took Duryodhana back. Hey, I know I have some blessing.

Does Bhima also have some blessing? How is he not hurt by it? If Bhima had shown even the slightest pain at that time, then Duryodhana would have attacked instantaneously and Bhima would have been killed. So, Bhima somehow by the power of his heroism, by his will, by not showing any pain while he was injured, survived that. But Bhima realized this cannot go on.

Next time he is going to hit me and I will not be able to show, act as if there is no pain and then he will hit me again and kill me. So that is when Bhima decided this match has been made unfair against me. So, what do you do at that time? If the rules are changed so that you are put in a situation which is unwinnable, then you have to change the rules.

So, what was what Bhima did wrong? Well, yes. But the whole match was wrong. Gandhari coming in and giving a blessing like that to her son out of her love had changed the games of the match.

Changed the rules of the match. So, the only vulnerability that Bhima could find he had to lose that. If the batsman cannot get out, then the only thing the bowler can do is just throw the ball at the head of the batsman and get him retired hurt.

You know, attacking and injuring the batsman so that the batsman gets retired hurt. That's not a good thing to do. But if the rules are changed, the batsman cannot get out only.

The bowler is bowling and bowling and the bowler is getting tired and the batsman never wants to get out. Yes, it was a wrong thing. But the whole situation was wrong.

And Bhima had to do what he had to do at that particular time. And of course, at the end, what Ashwathama did was so horrible. Killing the Pandavas' sons when they were all sleeping.

And then trying to destroy the entire army. So, the point over here is that did the Pandavas do wrong things? Yes. Did the Kauravas do wrong things? Yes.

But are the two wrong things the same? Not at all. The Kauravas did many wrong things without any provocation. So, I said, how do we decide what is the wrong thing? Where did it go? Okay.

Who started it was one thing. Who aggravated it? And third was, was there any alternative? So, the Pandavas did something wrong when they were left with no alternative. The Kauravas always had alternatives.

The Kauravas had perfectly respectful alternatives. Pandavas have your kingdom. You know, you have your kingdom.

The Pandavas give them at least five villages. So, each of the wrongs that the Pandavas did, either it was not a wrong, it was just a trick. But even if it was a wrong, it was when they had no alternative.

When something similar or far worse had been done to them before. In that same war, Agamemnon had been against the rules of war. So, when they decided to break the rules against Duryodhana or Karna, it was fair game.

But it was when there was no alternative for them, especially for the Kauravas to not do things like that. So, one last point. The Gita itself tells Arjuna, sarvarambha ito shena.

Sometimes life does not give us a good choice. So, we have to make the best among bad choices. And Krishna tells Arjuna that okay, killing your relatives is not a good thing.

But if you don't kill your relatives, what are they going to do? They will kill you, they will kill your family. But on top of that, after that, if people like Duryodhana have unchallenged power, how much harm will they do to the world? And you are a protector. You will fail in your duty if you don't kill them.

So, sometimes life just does not leave us with a good choice. So, if there are two bad choices, then we have to evaluate. This is a bad choice, this is a bad choice.

So then, we need to evaluate which is worse. And then, which is the less bad. This whole Mahabharata happens at the start of Kali Yuga.

And Krishna is actually, through his examples, demonstrating what is going to happen in Kali Yuga and how we need to deal with it. One of the great mysteries in Indian history is how India, which was such a powerful kingdom, was repeatedly attacked by so many invaders. Many times it was different invaders only fighting for India or fighting for different parts of India.

So, there are many reasons for it. Indian kings were disunited and many other reasons were there. But one of the things was that Indians did not understand what Krishna taught through the Mahabharata.

What does that mean? See, there were times when Islamic invaders exploited the weakness of the Hindus. They knew that Hindus respect cows. So, what they would do is, in front of their armies, they would put cows.

And the Hindu soldiers would think, oh, how can we attack cows? And they would not attack. And from behind the cows, Islamic soldiers would attack. And then, they would just slaughter the Indians.

Or, if the Hindus and the Muslims were on two sides of the river waiting to fight, the Muslims would kill some cows and put the flesh and the blood of the cows in the river. And then the Hindus would think, oh, how can we drink the blood of the cows? And they would not drink the water and they would become weak. And then the Muslims would attack and they would kill them.

So, now, yes, we should not drink the cows' blood, but certainly not, we should not kill cows. But, in not killing those few hundred cows that were there, what was the result? They lost the war and then thousands and millions of cows were killed. Eventually, when the Islamic invaders won.

Now, you say the Islamic invaders are bad. Well, that can be said, but they just exploited the weakness. So, now the Hindus should have learnt from Krishna that Shatho Shatyam Shatho Shatyam means with the cunning we need to be cunning.

If somebody is trying to exploit our weaknesses, or somebody is trying to exploit our goodness as a weakness, then we should not let that be exploited. So, that is the lesson that Krishna is teaching us. And if we don't learn that lesson, then it is we who are going to be harmed.

It is we who will be exploited. It is we who will be persecuted. So, yes, doing the right thing is difficult.

But, just because two sides do wrong things, does not mean both sides are equally bad. There is a history and we need to evaluate overall which side has morality on its side prominently and which has immorality on its side. So, Krishna says, every endeavour is covered by fault, just as fire is covered by smoke.

But, we need to evaluate in the bigger picture which is the right thing to do. So, I will summarize. The broad issue was are the Pandavas and Kauravas equally bad? So, that is the topic which we are discussing today.

And we were discussing a topic. We discussed various principles. I will quickly summarize.

Are the Pandavas and Kauravas equally bad? The first point we discussed was we made a list of the wrongs done by the Pandavas and the Kauravas. And then, here we discussed along with the list, the principle of how there are moral and ethical choices. So, there can be moral choices means one side is right and one side is wrong.

Ethical is where? Both sides have something good and something bad about it. So, the Mahabharata often presents us, if you see what the Kauravas had were, the Kauravas often had moral choices and they made immoral choices. The Pandavas had ethical choices.

And they made the best among two bad options. So, we discussed the list of events. So, initially at least, it is the Kauravas who were doing wrong and the Pandavas who were tolerating.

The Pandavas were not escalating. The Kauravas were doing wrong and they were escalating. So, then we discussed how broadly, who started it, who escalated it and who had alternatives and who did not.

So, if we consider from this perspective, the Pandavas are certainly more, Pandavas are certainly better than the Kauravas because the Kauravas deliberately provoked and did wrong. And the last lesson we discussed was that, that sometimes with the cunning we need to be cunning. This is Krishna's lesson for Kali Yuga.

Are there any questions or comments? See, that is the question now. When somebody is tolerating, is it a good thing or is it a bad thing? Now, in the retrospect, we can see they have become worse and worse. So, maybe they were not tolerated at that time.

But at that hindsight, everybody is doing this 20 by 20. After a cricket match, when somebody has lost the match, they say, no, the captain should have given the ball to this bowler, the bowler should have bowled like this, or this bowler should have been bowling first, or the fielder should have been kept over there. After that, we can always say, it should have been done like this or should have been done like that.

Now, from the Pandavas' perspective in that situation, so, when the Pandavas tolerated, it was both a matter of principle that it's our family, let's not escalate the issue. Let's not bring it into public. Now, if the Pandavas knew that the cover was going to be so bad, they learnt from experience.

See, the Pandavas were shocked each time what the cover was doing. Bhima's killing was a shock for them. By the time when they tried to have the Pandavas killed, the Pandavas were ready for it.

They were alert. But in Draupadi's room, they were completely shocked by this. So, it was a matter of principle.

Secondly, it was also a matter of strategy. In the sense that, at that time, the Pandavas were orphans. They had just come new from the forest to the kingdom.

And, if they had complained against the Kauravas, now, who could have listened to them? Would Duryodhana of Dhritarashtra have listened to them? Would Bhishma have listened to them? Would Drona have listened to them? Did they have any hard evidence that this was done by them only? They didn't have that. So, now, when the Pandavas were strong enough to fight against the entire Kaurava army, with Bhishma and Drona against them, they were not sure they would have done that. Later on, at Dhritarashtra, when Arjuna held back the entire Kaurava army, that was a spectacular feat.

But Arjuna had to have tapasya. Arjuna had gone and there were celestial weapons at that time. But at these times, it was not clear if the Pandavas could have done much.

So, it was a matter of principle and strategy that they tolerated. Any other questions? Why was there a need to stake Draupadi? Why was there a need to stake Draupadi? Yes. See, these kinds of incidents, I don't have the time to go into everything, but the incidents in scripture can be understood at four different levels.

There is a, you can use the acronym LEED for that. At a literal level, it's just an entertaining story. At an ethical level, we consider which character did a right thing or a wrong thing.

At an allegorical level, we look at the symbolism. Like Ravan represents lust. Or, the six sons of Devaki who were killed, they represent the lust and they are filled with pride and energy.

And there is a devotional level. At the devotional level, it's just the Leela of the Lord. So, at a devotional level, everything that happened here was to ultimately demonstrate that even when we have many protectors, still we will be put in a situation where we have no one to protect us.

And then only Krishna can protect us. That is at the devotional level. Now, at the ethical level, as I said, Yudhishthir was pressured into gambling.

He didn't want to gamble. It was not that he wanted to earn any money. In fact, he said right at the start, Oh Duryodhana, why do you want to steal from me the wealth with which I want to serve the Brahmins? I want to serve society.

So, Duryodhana said, I don't want to do it. It's just a match. He knew it was not just a match.

But, when he started gambling and losing, he started thinking, I have to take care of my family. I have to serve the Brahmins. I should have something with me.

And in that hope of trying to have something, he kept gambling more and more. He was thinking, if I just win one match, I will gain something back and then he can stop. So, Yudhishthir does acknowledge that I got carried away.

That I should have stopped gambling. That I should have stopped gambling at a particular time. So, his gambling, up to the point of gambling philopathy, was excessive.

He should not have done that. Arjuna also told Yudhishthir to stop. Yudhishthir didn't listen.

So, his gambling itself was under pressure. But his gambling so much was also under another kind of pressure which he could have avoided. Any other questions? Karna was insulted in war.

Not in war. Test of war. He said, I cannot.

Now, Karna's situation is a complicated situation. The fact is that in this world, from this life's perspective, everybody has something unfair to them. So, if you consider Karna's situation and Arjuna's situation.

Now, if you look at the list of unfair things, at one level, Karna didn't get Kshatriya honour or facility. That's a terrible thing. But, Arjuna, he didn't get ordinary safety also.

Isn't it? As a child, his brother was poisoned. When he was just a teenager, his whole family was attempted to be bombed. Can you imagine if once we have been politically poisoned, and we have to stay in that same house every single day of the day.

How much anxiety would be there? Karna had no such anxiety. So, who is to decide who had a more difficult childhood? That's something bad that happened to Arjuna also. Now, Karna can say, why did I not deserve this honour of Kshatriya? Well, Arjuna says, what did I do to deserve this? Somebody had to constantly take my life or take the life of my family.

So, bad things happened to both of them. So, life is unfair in some ways. But the key thing is, what decisions do we make? Do we continue to be unfair, or do we choose to become fair? So, Arjuna befriended Krishna.

Then Karna befriended Duryodhana. So, Arjuna-Krishna friendship was there. Karna-Duryodhana friendship was there.

At this point, Karna might not have known what kind of character Duryodhana had. Duryodhana just helped me when I was in need. It's fair enough.

But eventually, when he realized what kind of person Duryodhana is. Say, in some poor place in Pakistan, there is some orphan child who is dying of starvation. And some people say, we'll feed you, we'll cloth you, we'll educate you.

He feels very grateful. But after that, he finds out that these people who are feeding me are terrorists. And they are training me so that I can become a terrorist and I can kill innocent people.

Then does gratitude to those who saved his life require him to also become a terrorist and kill innocent people? No. Gratitude is an important value. But there are other values to also be considered.

So, Karna, he faced unfair situations, but he also made bad decisions. So, that's how eventually he was doomed. So, life is unfair to everybody.

But we need to make the best out of that, not the worst out of it. Why did Karna participate in the 11th day? Okay, why did Karna participate in the 11th day? Yeah, because Bhishma wanted that somehow the war should not happen. Or if the war happens, the war should not go for too long.

So, with that end, when Karna tried to boast about his power, and everybody was giving their estimate in how much time they can defeat the opposite army. So, Bhishma gave an estimate, I will defeat my army this much time. And Karna said, I can do it in half the time.

And then Bhishma got annoyed by that. He said, Karna, you boast so much, but what is your record? Have you once been able to defeat Arjuna? You say you are better than me, but you were defeated by Arjuna in Virat. So, when have you ever won against Arjuna? So, at that time, in order to cut down Karna's boasting, Bhishma evaluated Karna and said, he is not a maharati, he is Agalati.

Now, that was, to some extent, unfairly low evaluation. But that was because Karna was bragging too much. So, Karna felt humiliated by that.

And he said, as long as Bhishma is the commander, I will not fight for him. Because, if I fight under him and I gain victory, he will get the credit. So, he said, he has not given me due respect.

So, I don't want to give him the credit for the victory that I will bring. So, as long as Bhishma was the commander, he refused to fight. Now, as far as Kunti not revealing to Yudhishthir, it was a difficult decision.

In those times, for a woman to have a child before marriage, it was all a complicated situation. So, she did not reveal to anyone. Now, just before the war, she went to Karna and revealed it to him.

Her purpose was to come out and get Karna to not fight against the Mahatmas. Now, she wanted that none of her sons should fight with each other. She wanted to avoid the war itself.

But, the best chance of doing that was Duryodhana going to listen. But, if somehow Karna listened, and Karna decided I will not fight on the Kauravas' side, then even Duryodhana's confidence would go down. If Duryodhana's confidence went down, then Duryodhana would not fight.

If they made Duryodhana not fight, the fight would not go on for so long. In that way, the war could be avoided. Actually, Krishna also did that.

Krishna first tried to persuade Duryodhana and he would not succeed in persuading Duryodhana. Then he turned towards Karna and he toppled Karna also. So, the point here is that these things were different strategies that were used.

Now, could Kunti have told the Pandavas it's possible, but then it is a complicated situation. Now, Karna, what happened was he said that I want to kill Arjuna or I will die fighting with Arjuna. He said he was so longing for honour, he was so longing for honour, he said that if Yudhishthira comes to know that I am his brother, then he will not fight against me.

And then I want to know that I am better than Arjuna. So, better you don't tell them. And if you don't tell them, then I promise you that I won't kill any of your other forces.

You always don't have Vaisans, you will always have Vaisans. But this was not what Kunti asked for. Kunti just said that you come on the Pandava side.

So, he gave her something else. So, Kunti did not speak to the Pandavas. So, it's such a complex situation and even if you call it a mistake, it is an understandable situation.

And Karna prevailed on her at that time. And she decided to go ahead with that. If Karna had said that I will talk with Yudhishthira, I will let him know at least five villages, then the whole world would have heard about it.

But Karna, unfortunately, did not try to do that also. Yeah. It's one of the last questions.

Arjuna would save Anubhanya with the vast Pratahastra. Why did Arjuna not save Anubhanya? Because Arjuna was sidetracked. The Pandava Kauravas had one of their very powerful generals, Susharmani, challenge Arjuna and tackled Arjuna to the side.

And they had Arjuna go far far away from the main battle. And after Arjuna had gone far away, then they quickly reformed their army so that the Chakravyuha was formed. So Arjuna was fighting far away elsewhere.

Arjuna didn't even know that Anubhanya was in Kaurava. That evening when he came back, it would be like he realized that Anubhanya has been killed. Is there one question here somewhere? Okay, last question.

We should stop at this. What? Which system? Okay, so this has got nothing to do with the Mahabharata specifically. Okay.

See, there are different ways to look at these things. Religion Religion can be a spiritual path to God. But religion can also be a political path to power.

It depends on how religion is used or misused. So now we have to be realistic. Ideally the purpose of various religions was to provide people pathways to God.

And there are many people who have tried to come closer to God through different religions in this world. But Krishna talks that there is Satvaguna, Rajoguna, Tamoguna in this world. And people who are in Satvaguna, they will practice their Dharma, whatever religion they are having, to try to come closer to God.

But people who are in Rajoguna or in Tamoguna, for them religion is more a path to power. One is I become more powerful, the other is I will destroy you. So when religions are used this way or are used this way, then we have to respond appropriately.

So that means we also have to gain political power. We also have to make sure that if somebody is forced to make a polity, then we have defensive measures for that. So in the history of the world, just because somebody is right, does not mean necessarily the world will consider them to be right or they will have the right results.

They also have to get the appropriate resources. See there is good intention. But good intention is not a substitute for good intelligence.

You may have good intentions but you need to have good intelligence also. So good intelligence means if we see somebody is using a particular strategy, then we have to find out how to counter that strategy. So in many ways, if we consider when Islam emerged in the Middle East, there was a subcontinent civilization over there, the Assyrian civilization.

That was also the place where the Parsis, Zoroastrians were there. All those things were completely annihilated over there. The Islamic rule was there in India for at least 600-700 years.

It is the resilience, the staying power of the Sanatan Dharma, that in spite of Islamic rule being there for so long, the Sanatan Dharma was not annihilated. It still survived. So as compared to the situation a few hundred years ago, the situation now is not that bad.

And it can become better. It may become more resourceful. So we have to take whatever measures are required for protecting Dharma.

So the Jews are examples of how people who are very small in number but they have taken measures by which they protect themselves. And we also need to do that. So thank you very much.