Was Rishi Kindama's curse fair? - Page 4

Originally posted by: peridot.

The MB epi showed that it was Madri who asked for the deer. Did she want it alive or dead? Did she want it for a pet or for food? This isnt clear. It does not make sense why Pandu would kill a deer that was mating. Had he seen that the deer was mating or simply shot the arrow assuming a running deer's location.

whatever reasons for getting a deer dead or alive was wrong. I guess if Madri had asked the king to get her the deer then I will go for alive what will she do with a dead animal 😕 may be use his skin for shoes or a purse or a hand bag 😆 but somehow I doubt this is the reason

So why would Pandu kill an animal ???????😕 if Madri wanted a living deer.
Somehow I do not believe in this story because what they have shown has left so many unanswered questions?????

I badly want to look into rishi Ved Vyas ji's mahabharat which is gone 😭. don't know which Mahabharat is genuine which is not????

Originally posted by: peridot.

I think the lesson is that if someone has a special ability or boon it should be used with care and not indiscriminately.

absolutely right. The whole Mahabharat and Purans veds are full of lessons which are applicable in everyday life from millions of years and they would continue to teach humanity till the whole creations gets destroyed but hundred dolor question is has humanity ever learnt any lessons form it

no - see what chaos this world has come to now so much of cruelty and selfishness loot greed lust is around us and increasing everyday more and more.
Yes - some people have learnt lessons from it in fact majority of the people have learnt. Proof is the humanity is still surviving even after millions of years
😆 so thee is still hope for us.
so this proves that people do take lessons form our texts taught by our great learned sages 👏
koti koti pranam to them _/\_ _/\_

I just remembered a similar incident when Sita had asked for a golden deer which was actually Rishi Marich in the form of a deer. It is said that Ravana had forced Marich to take the form of a golden deer to entice Sita who would in turn have asked Rama to get it for her. Rama went after the deer and ultimately shot him but meanwhile Sita got abducted by Ravana and that was the beginning of her woes.

According to me the curse was not fair. Pandu was a rightful emperor and whatever happened was an unwanted mistake. He could have been cursed but not to such an extent that his life was cut so short. Also kunti and madri had to suffer. They didnt get a chance at a happy married life which the three of them deserved.

I think the curse was justified.

Everyone is bound by Karma. Whatever you do, you shall reap.

The killing of animals IS the norm for people. However it doesn't make it right just because it was the norm. They still have to cleanse their karma for murder.

This was the same for the Pandavas. They had to cleanse themselves of Nar Hathiya (Manslaughter) after the war of Kurukshetra. Krishna advised them to do it. Therefore I think Pandu's act of killing animals, and the curse he was given was because of his Karma.

Originally posted by: Manojie

I think the curse was justified.

Everyone is bound by Karma. Whatever you do, you shall reap.

The killing of animals IS the norm for people. However it doesn't make it right just because it was the norm. They still have to cleanse their karma for murder.

This was the same for the Pandavas. They had to cleanse themselves of Nar Hathiya (Manslaughter) after the war of Kurukshetra. Krishna advised them to do it. Therefore I think Pandu's act of killing animals, and the curse he was given was because of his Karma.

This karma thing and what exacrtly is right or wrong can be quite dubious I feel. What happens if a king refuses to go go to war when an enemy king attacks his people? Would he be earning positive karma points if he refuses to fight as he does not wish to kil anybody? Or would he be failing in his duty as a king for exposing his people to the enemy's wrath and plunder?

Originally posted by: peridot.

This karma thing and what exacrtly is right or wrong can be quite dubious I feel. What happens if a king refuses to go go to war when an enemy king attacks his people? Would he be earning positive karma points if he refuses to fight as he does not wish to kil anybody? Or would he be failing in his duty as a king for exposing his people to the enemy's wrath and plunder?

Killing whom exactly would be a sin? Only humans, or also animals, birds, insects, micro-organisms, plants?

He is a king and a king's dharm is to protect his country and people living in her. So his karm is to protect if he does not do that then his enemy will attack and make him and his people his slave or even kill that king.

So king will suffer his bad karm of not keeping his dharm.

Therefor, formula is quite simple just like any mathemetical formula

a + b = c

therefore, dharm + karm = ful

+a + - b = - c

😆 killing is not a sin if you are protecting yourself and yours it is dharm of protection otherwise mother nature is the most gruesome killer in the whole universe and she never ever has to pay for killing she does that to protect herself and her resourses and her children yes sometimes she kills her own chidlren to protect her earth so that majority of her chidlren living beings of all kinds can live and she punishes as well to misuse her resourses.

Take from Examples available in Mahabharat Dronacharya paid his wrong karm and did not duty towards mankind by lieing and cheating therefore, dharm was not on his side.

Bheeshm paid for killing a worm by a nail inserting 100s of times till the worm died and same way he was punished through several arrows pierced on his body

Krishn lied several times during the mahabharat war that is how he won that war becasue dharm was on his side and he was doign his karm to do that dharm

Example Ashwathama. He said agar dharm ko bachane ke liye 100 jhoot bhi bolne pade to weh paap nahi hota.

sometimes like abhimanu died we have no answer why he died the way he died may be he also must have done some bad karm

Draupadi got 5 husbands bcoz she wanted too many qualties in a husbadn which is not possible in any single human being so she paid

our nani dadi always tell us that achchhe karm ka nateeja achcha hi hota hai
hame hamesha hamara dharm palan karna chahiye 😆

this is the basic problem of human is right from the beginning
A human is too ambitious abhilashi and ichchuk
sometime these wants in us lead us to go astray
and when we do we pay and siffer our bad karms and not doing according to our dharm
one in a million in million years becomes Gautam Budhdh Shankaracharya Dayanand Saraswati
Vivekanand 😆 who go astray towards the right path for humanity's sake.

and when they do come in our lives somehow their aura changes our lives too

Originally posted by: rasyafan

He is a king and a king's dharm is to protect his country and people living in her. So his karm is to protect if he does not do that then his enemy will attack and make him and his people his slave or even kill that king.

So king will suffer his bad karm of not keeping his dharm.

Therefor, formula is quite simple just like any mathemetical formula

a + b = c

therefore, dharm + karm = ful

+a + - b = - c

😆 killing is not a sin if you are protecting yourself and yours it is dharm of protection otherwise mother nature is the most gruesome killer in the whole universe and she never ever has to pay for killing she does that to protect herself and her resourses and her children yes sometimes she kills her own chidlren to protect her earth so that majority of her chidlren living beings of all kinds can live and she punishes as well to misuse her resourses.

Take from Examples available in Mahabharat Dronacharya paid his wrong karm and did not duty towards mankind by lieing and cheating therefore, dharm was not on his side.

Bheeshm paid for killing a worm by a nail inserting 100s of times till the worm died and same way he was punished through several arrows pierced on his body

Krishn lied several times during the mahabharat war that is how he won that war becasue dharm was on his side and he was doign his karm to do that dharm

Example Ashwathama. He said agar dharm ko bachane ke liye 100 jhoot bhi bolne pade to weh paap nahi hota.

sometimes like abhimanu died we have no answer why he died the way he died may be he also must have done some bad karm

Draupadi got 5 husbands bcoz she wanted too many qualties in a husbadn which is not possible in any single human being so she paid

Originally posted by: peridot.

That would indicate that killing itself isnt bad unlike what the earlier post by a member said. It says that Krishna said to atone for killing people at Kurushetra when actually it was Krishna himself who persuaded Arjuna to fight the MB battle. If the warriors duty was to fight the war as per their dharma then they should not have to atone for those killings.

As for Abhimanyu's early death I remember reading somewhere that in his previous bith he was some God's son and was cursed to be born as human but his father could not bear the separation for so long therefore requested the person who cursed him to modify the curse which got modified to Abhmanyu not having to spend his life as human for too long. So whether an event is a curse or a blessing too is ambiguous without knowing about all the previous births *sigh*

true we don't remember our previous lives but the sins we do carry forwards to our next life. You know when mundan is done that itself means that the child has let go of the past and is moving forward to his new life

but unfortunately, our sins carry forward to our next life too and next and next till w have paid for all our sins and that is when we get moksh salvation.

Yes killing is not bad it is dharm to protect. That is why there are rules of battle that you would not kill a nihatta someone who does not have tools to protect himself.

If there is no killing no adharm then how will life move forward how will people be born how will old things die and new things created

this is life my dear

when a new baby is born then we all celebrate when someone dies we all cry
when a person who has lived his long life and dies we cry only for sometime but then we celebrate that he has lived long and his full life.

See how even Abhimanyu god's son had to pay for his bad karm thanks for this story I had no idea about it.

Do you know even Mahadev Shivji had commited a bheeshan paap of killing brahma even he paid nobody is devoid of karmic cycle everybody whether god asur demi gods humans birds animals they all pay for bad karms

Originally posted by: peridot.

This karma thing and what exacrtly is right or wrong can be quite dubious I feel. What happens if a king refuses to go go to war when an enemy king attacks his people? Would he be earning positive karma points if he refuses to fight as he does not wish to kil anybody? Or would he be failing in his duty as a king for exposing his people to the enemy's wrath and plunder?

Killing whom exactly would be a sin? Only humans, or also animals, birds, insects, micro-organisms, plants?

hi peridot,
it wont seem dubious if we get to know the facts correctly as it happened.
while taking creative liberty these authors of folk editions or the makers of BRC Mahabharat fail to understand that these small things may not change the main essence of mahabharat itself, but leads to ambiguity in the karma cycle. it leads to more questions and sadly misinterpretations.

see, if you go by the KMG translation available on sacred texts, pandu argues with the rishi that killing/hunting of deer, helpless or not, is not a sin for kshatriyas. the rishi agrees and clarifies that the sin is not in killing him as a deer but that he(pandu) should have waited till he had done with his mating.


Vaisampayana said, 'O king, one day Pandu, while roaming about in the woods (on the southern slopes of the Himavat) that teemed with deer and wild animals of fierce disposition, saw a large deer, that seemed to be the leader of a herd, serving his mate.(pandu saw the deers mating and yet he shot at them, it was deliberate and not a mistake) Beholding the animals, the monarch pierced them both with five of his sharp and swift arrows winged with golden feathers. O monarch, that was no deer that Pandu struck at, but a Rishi's son of great ascetic merit who was enjoying his mate in the form of a deer. (the word mate is used and not wife) Pierced by Pandu, while engaged in the act of intercourse, he fell down to the ground, uttering cries that were of a man and began to weep bitterly. (if the female deer was rishi's wife why not mention her change to a woman on death? beacause the deer was only a deer, not a human in disguise of deer)

"The deer then said, 'O, king, I did not blame thee for thy having killed a deer, or for the injury thou hast done to me. But, instead of acting so cruelly, thou shouldst have waited till the completion of my act of intercourse. ( pandu is nor cursed for killing a deer , but for the time of killing it) What man of wisdom and virtue is there that can kill a deer while engaged in such an act? The time of sexual intercourse is agreeable to every creature and productive of good to all.
I am a Muni of the name of Kindama, possessed of ascetic merit. I was engaged in sexual intercourse with this deer, because my feelings of modesty did not permit me to indulge in such an act in human society. In the form of a deer I rove in the deep woods in the company of other deer. ( Kindama says himself a muni, not rishi, and mentions it as this deer or as other deer but not his wife. No wife of his is mentioned in this book.) Thou hast slain me without knowing that I am a Brahmana, the sin of having slain a Brahmana shall not, therefore, be thine. But senseless man, as you have killed me, disguised as a deer, at such a time, thy fate shall certainly be even like mine. When, approaching thy wife lustfully, thou wilt unite with her even as I had done with mine, in that very state shalt thou have to go to the world of the spirits. And that wife of thine with whom thou mayst be united in intercourse at the time of thy death shall also follow thee with affection and reverence to the domains of the king of the dead.(the book also explains why it is madri only who dies on the funeral pyre and kunti is left behind) Thou hast brought me grief when I was happy. So shall grief come to thee when thou art in happiness.'


p.s. by the way i am posting this excerpt for the second time in the same thread. i wonder whether people do read my posts or that they dont accept this version of mahabharat text as original.😕