Huge ambitions but... - Page 3

Having ambition is good but Dhritarashtra was greedy for the throne. Belittling his brothers and marrying as that would ascend him to the throne aren't the signs of a good king. But Bhishm had taken the responsibility of moulding him at the time of his birth... just wondering why didn't he instill values that king must have in Dhritarashtra bcuz he seems like a spoilt brat. Kicking his wife isn't respectful. 😕

Yes, even making him the king would have been a disastrous decision. Even with the physical disabilities, maybe he'd have overcome those if he was more calm, composed and most importantly, balanced. Cant help equating this to Indian politics. 😆 Manmohan Singh is also blind to most of the corruption that is ingrained within his party but that doesn't mean he's delusional or doesn't know whats happening around him. Do we see him shouting his roof top and acting all violent? Whether he's solving the problem or not is out of question here😆 but atleast he commands dignity and respect. Sadly, Dhritarashtra doesn't. I see that quality in Pandu.

Originally posted by: Binge

Having ambition is good but Dhritarashtra was greedy for the throne. Belittling his brothers and marrying as that would ascend him to the throne aren't the signs of a good king. But Bhishm had taken the responsibility of moulding him at the time of his birth... just wondering why didn't he instill values that king must have in Dhritarashtra bcuz he seems like a spoilt brat. Kicking his wife isn't respectful. 😕

Yes, even making him the king would have been a disastrous decision. Even with the physical disabilities, maybe he'd have overcome those if he was more calm, composed and most importantly, balanced. Cant help equating this to Indian politics. 😆 Manmohan Singh is also blind to most of the corruption that is ingrained within his party but that doesn't mean he's delusional or doesn't know whats happening around him. Do we see him shouting his roof top and acting all violent? Whether he's solving the problem or not is out of question here😆 but atleast he commands dignity and respect. Sadly, Dhritarashtra doesn't. I see that quality in Pandu.

Brilliantly put 😆 and good observation 👏
😡 Blindness Dumbness Defness of MMS is the reason today nation is facing yet another Mahabharat and Rajmata is again insisting that her Yuvraj Duryodhan sits on the throne just because the corrupt Maharathis are surrounding him so they continue to do as international MNCs and governments wish and they get to loot our country even more and till once again we are slaves Do you think MMS is Bheeshm
But where is inteligent Patriotic Vidhur
can public be Vidhur to stop Duryodhan from being king of our coutry and snatch her from goon's hands.

We better be if we want to save our country and our own hide.

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

Infact i think stayavati was right today.Yes dhridhrashtra no doubt would have been a weak king but he would have had strong people around him to ensure that kingdom comes to no harm.Dhridhrashtra always had inferiority comples which further increased when pandu became king and it transformed into dhuryodhan's ambition .Had dhridhrashtra always been the king duryodhan wouldnt have been so ambitious.That is what i think

To rule, a king has to be very very strong and should be all rounder because he is ruling a kingdom not a household and if a king is weak then his employees under him take advantage and what happens to that country?????

Dhritrashtras ambitions were raised by none other then his grand mother whose duty was to make him a strong and complete human and how come a person whose is blind from birth know what it is like to see he knows only one color black and thus his other senses becomes better adn good through which he sees or rather feels ofcourse unless he has been fed from childhood this knowledge that he is blind and caanot see and that still he will be king one day and doubts were shown in front of him that must have given him an inferiority complex and a feeling of incompleteness which is clearly visible in his behaviour as well as his language his speech his every feeling.

Many snakes are blind and deaf they cannot see or hear but they pick up vibrations to hunt and live life and survive just like other animals who can both see and hear. They are not incomplete or in any way less then other animals in fact their senses are better then any other animal and they are damn good hunters and protect themselves very very well.

Not equating a snake with Dhritrashtra just giving an example that a human also is a complete person even if blind from birth but he needs to be made strong and parents do that job. Whereas his rajmata did not do her job very well and mothers do not count at all obviously though. I guess they had no say in his upbringing. I am not refering to this MAhabharat which is being shown. Or the old one.

What Vidhur said during his Rajya abhishekh that a janmandh can never be a king is not new the entire country knew this and certainly both Bheeshm and Raj mata knew. They even showed that in this Mahabharat Bheeshm almost said that when he would be a king but he remembered and stopped from saying this when he was soothing a crying mother of a new born who was blind, Dhritrashtra.

Originally posted by: rasyafan

So many viewers who have read Mahabharat are asking the same thing so the 100 dollor question is WHY ARE THEY SHOWING HEROES AND HEROINES OF MAHABHARAT IN SUCH A DEGRADING MANNER????

I CERTAINLY AM

MAY BE DHRITRASHTRA LEFT GANDHARI BUT I AM SURE NOT THIS WAY THE WAY IT HAS BEEN SHOWN TODAY???? AND GANDHARI WAS A STRONG LADY NOT THIS BECHARI SORT THE HEROINE OF THIS STAR PLUS MAHABHARAT

Originally posted by: rasyafan

If their relationship would have been strong then dhritrashtra would have listened to her rather then Shakuni.

He a powerful king who could hear from his ears rather then his eyes better then any person who could see, how come he could not recognize a cunning fox in his house and his life ?????

Yes I can understand exxaggeration but not twisting facts and lying through out and in this mahabharat they are lying 😡 well this exxaggeration for me is as good as lying

everybody in mahabharat was a person who followed norms and values even satyavati according to their circumstances but as they say dwarpar yug was standing on 3 pillars of adharm and one pillar of dharm so there was this imbalance adharm more

yet each tried to do his duty well and even had grey shades sometimes would get selfish or rather could not recognize what is wrong or what is right eg bheeshm yudhisthar satyavati etc but then there were people who were outright adharm and only followed adharm did adharmi karm eg duryodhan and shakuni and 99 rest of sons but then there were two people who did only dharm and only dharm
but got in between adharm and dharm and tried to make dharm win over adharm
these two creatures were Shri krishan and Maharishi Ved Vyas ji 👏

😃

Dhritarashtra was greedy as well as proud too.He was always belittling Pandu and Vidur. He always considered himself the best and the right heir to the throne. He was low in confidence.I had watched the nirvastra of Draupadi and Dhritrashtra never even once tried to stop the evil Duryodhan from committing this crime.He had spoilt him so much that he let Duryodhan do what he wanted to do whether it was right or wrong.And,like someone mentioned in one of the post I too feel that the main khalnayak was none other than Dhritrashtra himself,the arrogant king of Hastinapur.

Originally posted by: fatssrilanka

Neither I've read Mahabharat nor have I watched the old Mahanharat.And,I actually thought Satyavathi to be selfish & ambitious that she would stoop so low to fulfill her desires.After reading this thread I'm shocked that how can a PH show their own story.

I don't know