A man is supposed to be virtuous, why is it then that the Pandavas brothers when escaping from the house that they set on fire to avoid the fate that Purocana had in store for them did they let a innocent woman and her five sons die? How is that act virtuous?
To you and I, it would not be virtuous at all to let innocent people die. However, we live in a remarkably different society than that of anywhere on the Asian continent.
ReplyDeleteI'm not an expert on Hindus or India in general, but this semester I have been taking a class on Intercultural Communications, and from that class I've picked up that Asian cultures, such as Indians, or Chinese, Koreans, etc, are strongly clan based and there are in-groups and out-groups, and that the rules of civility and hospitality and courtesy are very rigid and strong for people in the in-group, and guests of the in-group. However, members of the out-group are almost completely insignificant- that's why you always seem images of Japanese people shoving one another to crowd themselves onto a Subway train; courtesy doesn't apply to strangers.
Considering that idea, I would assume that to the Pandavas, the woman and her sons were almost completely insignificant, and non-existant as they would represent an out-group. Re-reading the passage on page 30, I don't see anything about the woman or her children that gives me any reason to think that they were friendly with the Pandavas.
But surely, if they were not strangers, I would be certain that the Pandavas would have taken them out of the house before burning it.
I think in some instances, a man chooses to be virtuous according to convenience. I think that the mindset of these people was that if they were virtuous most of the time, then that was okay because no one can be proven to be virtuous in every action they make. In the burning of the house, the Pandavas wanted to protect themselves first before trying to save someone else’s life. Had it been one of their own close relatives, then it is a possibility that a Pandava would have stayed back to help Purocana, however, Purocana was not a significant person in their life for them to jeopardize their own well-being. Furthermore, if this event took place in the Iliad, it is very likely that the Pandavas would have fought each other so that they would be noted as the honorable one who saved Purocana. It was the Iliad in which Honor and Glory was important and self-sacrifice was prominent. I think it is another possibility that the Pandavas did not think that it was a part of their dharma to save Purocana and therefore, they were still virtuous men.
ReplyDeleteI was a bit taken aback by this passage, but it doesn't really allude to how old this woman's sons are. I'm assuming that if the Pandavas are full grown, then the sons must be, as well. Still it seemed a bit wrong to just leave them in that house to die. Purocana, I can kind of understand...
ReplyDeleteThe woman was a Nisada, which was the tribe of hunters. Given the fact that society was (and largely still is) divided into four castes - the Pandavas were Kshatriyas (warrior class) and this woman was from the Sudra (lower class) - was it their duty to rescue her and her sons from that fate? Did it add to their Dharma to rescue individuals from another caste?
I guess the Pandavas were pursuing their own svadharma.
I thought that throughout the text the Pandavas brothers did many things that I would not consider virtuous. Like when Karna was shot by a Pandava even though he was not on his chariot, and when Bhima struck Duryodhana in the thigh even when that was not acceptable in battle. I believe the Pandavas overall were only concerned with themselves and what they wanted. They did whatever they had to in order to better themselves. In my opinion they were not virtuous and did many things I would consider wrong.
ReplyDeleteBest merit casino - XN's 90BOG
ReplyDeletein 메리트 카지노 쿠폰 the form of virtual blackjack with the traditional rules of roulette, the best online casino with games such as Keno, Texas Hold'em,