Originally Posted by podalangai
Pizzalot, I think you are looking for something in the Mahabharatam that traditionally Hindus do not see in it. You are looking at it as if it is a moral guide. I don't know how the northern-revivalist Hindu schools treat it, but in traditional orthodox Hinduism in Tamil Nadu at least it has not had that status. I come from a traditional Vaishnavite background. When we were children, we were taught to keep people like Alavandar, Kurattazhwar, Cherachakravarthi Kulasekara Perumal and other devotees as our role models. For every great devotee there was some quality we were taught to emulate, but we were never told to behave like Yudhistiran or Arjunan or Vimasenan.
For us the importance of the Mahabharata is not that its characters conduct shows morality but that the story as a whole holds many religious and spiritual truths. An itihasam comes in nyanakandam, not karmakandam. I think Badri pointed out that the Mahabharatam shows that in Kali Yuga nobody can be perfectly righteous, because everybody in the Mahabharata has their flaws. The deeper lesson in this is that righteousness based purely on the old texts of the Dharmasutras will by itself not get you beyond a point in the Kali Yuga. Ultimately, in the end even Duryodhanan can argue that he has lived by the letter of the shastras. The only true source of righteousness in the Kali Yuga is the righteousness that comes when you surrender completely to God and let him guide your conduct. For those who have not reached that stage, the only true guide is following the conduct of those who have. Because they did not do this the result of the Shastric conduct of the Pandavas and Kauravas was that they brought destruction on everybody around them including their subjects who they were supposed to protect. This is the only moral lesson that can be learnt from the conduct of the parties.
We do not look for moral lessons in the deeds of Sri Krishnaperumal. It is not like the role of Lord Buddha or the imitation of Christ. Their significance is different. We are taught that the two avatarams at the time of the Mahabharatam demonstrate the difference between an avataram for the earlier yugams and for the Kali yugam. Balaraman is the former - he is disgusted by the war and refuses to take part in it, and he condemns immoral conduct on both sides. But Krishnaperumal's conduct is different because his avataram is a manifestation of God's role in the Kaliyugam. The avataram is not understood from the revelation of the Gita or the killing of Kamsan, but by the moment when Krishnaperumal walks as a humble messenger to the Kauravas. For us this is a very profound revelation about the relationship between a soul and God when it takes refuge in God. Traditionally, we did not even look for moral lessons in the deeds of Sri Ramachandran though because of north Indian influence some now do. The captivity of Sitaiammal had more religious significance in the Ramayanam in traditional orthodox interpretation.
I do not like to discuss my religion here because it is very personal and it is not good to talk about it in a place like this, but since you have been asking these questions for a while I felt it would be rude not to try to answer. I hope I have not upset or offended anybody. Sorry.
