<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Beeshma. Can Dushasana and Duryodhana's behaviour rationalized by impure food they ate?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Short answer: I think there was a lot more wrong with the Kauravas than could be put right with a change of diet. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The difference between Bheeshma on one hand and the Kauravas on the other is major. Bheeshma's whole character is generally in accordance with Dharma. He is conscious of his actions practically all of the time - always making sure that they are the right ones.
In the explanation for his past conduct that he gives to Draupadi (#105), he intimates why he verged from Dharma in that instance: his 'chitta' (what is this - the mind or conscience? :don't know) was <i>clouded</i> (reason given: impure food). If his sense of right and wrong was clouded, that explains why Bheeshma could have erred.
In the case of Duhshasana and Duryodhana, they live more by their whims in general.
Bheeshma's failing was in his duty to come to Draupadi's aid in her misery at the hands of the Kauravas.
Whereas with Duhshasana and the other Kauravas, though they knew well that what they were doing when they kept tugging at Draupadi's saree was wrong, they still did it, because they did not care: not about Draupadi's distress at her treatment nor about the repercussions of what they were doing. All they cared about at that point was to humiliate Draupadi and the Pandavas. They had grown haughty with their power and felt they were above the consequences of any their actions.
It would be unfair to compare Bheeshma's lapse - in what is otherwise his general good behaviour - with the Kauravas' frequent bad attitude towards others and their usual tendency to ignore Dharma whenever it didn't suit them. General good conduct must be recognised and taken into account as a good thing in its own right. One's overall behavioural record counts for something too, after all, and should be taken into consideration when lecturing people against their mistakes or expecting them to explain themselves for their misconduct.
According to what I've heard narrated from the Mahabharata, Bheeshma was a Vasu (a celestial, connected with fire I think) who was born as a human. His knowledge of Dharma is very perfect - so perfect that Krishna tells the Pandavas to ask the dying Bheeshma any and all questions on Dharma that they might have before he passes. From what one grandparent told me, Krishna tells the Five that no one remaining in that Yuga is as knowledgeable on the matter of the Vedas and Shastras as Bheeshma, and that the extent of his expertise on these matters is unrivalled and will disappear unless they ask their questions and preserve it for future generations. This is when the Pandavas start asking all the questions they can think of (including many they know the answer to already) while Bheeshma answers them from his bed of arrows.
For Bheeshma - who is not only well-versed in matters of Dharma, but also keenly (and innately) aware of right and wrong - to make such a mistake as to not rush to Draupadi's defense, would really have required more than a twisting of his arm or a threat: no physical obstacles could have ever held him back from what he ought to have done. Rather, it would've had to have been something that affected his being able to <i>act</i> on his sense of Dharma, or even something that temporarily prevented him from <i>recognising</i> right from wrong. And this is what he seems to be referring to when he uses "clouded" and says (#105):
"Through that impure food my chitta was clouded with their vRttis. So, <b>even as I knew the dharma</b>, I was far from it, because of the food I ate."
I think it is a powerful example of how even the most Dharmic of individuals becomes powerless to do what's right when their sense of right and wrong becomes misplaced or clouded over - even if only temporarily. Nothing else could have had such an unfortunate effect on Bheeshma.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->While Krishna follows all the code of conduct as suitable to an ambessador and as royal guest, but that is except for taking their food. Krishna refused to eat Duryodhan's food, and instead went to the house of Vidur uninvited, and ate the banana-peels from the hands of the devoted vidurANI.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Loved it. Thanks for that, Bodhi. More more.
Gods would never reside with adharmics (just as Lakshmi - and all that she presides over - is known not to stay where she is not respected). God eating your food is a sign of his/her affection as well as of their approving of your conduct. Kauravas did not get that stamp for good behaviour. But Vidura lives very much in accordance with Dharma. Besides, as you've written, the presence of a great Bhakta (Vidura's wife) is definite to attract Krishna in her own right.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Though literal translation of anna = rice, in some communities (especially mine) anna is loosely used for meal. (And what Bodhi said)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I see. That does explain why some of my relatives were referring to non-rice as anna too.... That also makes more sense in the contexts of Annapoorna and Annalakshmi. Cool.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->The difference between Bheeshma on one hand and the Kauravas on the other is major. Bheeshma's whole character is generally in accordance with Dharma. He is conscious of his actions practically all of the time - always making sure that they are the right ones.
In the explanation for his past conduct that he gives to Draupadi (#105), he intimates why he verged from Dharma in that instance: his 'chitta' (what is this - the mind or conscience? :don't know) was <i>clouded</i> (reason given: impure food). If his sense of right and wrong was clouded, that explains why Bheeshma could have erred.
In the case of Duhshasana and Duryodhana, they live more by their whims in general.
Bheeshma's failing was in his duty to come to Draupadi's aid in her misery at the hands of the Kauravas.
Whereas with Duhshasana and the other Kauravas, though they knew well that what they were doing when they kept tugging at Draupadi's saree was wrong, they still did it, because they did not care: not about Draupadi's distress at her treatment nor about the repercussions of what they were doing. All they cared about at that point was to humiliate Draupadi and the Pandavas. They had grown haughty with their power and felt they were above the consequences of any their actions.
It would be unfair to compare Bheeshma's lapse - in what is otherwise his general good behaviour - with the Kauravas' frequent bad attitude towards others and their usual tendency to ignore Dharma whenever it didn't suit them. General good conduct must be recognised and taken into account as a good thing in its own right. One's overall behavioural record counts for something too, after all, and should be taken into consideration when lecturing people against their mistakes or expecting them to explain themselves for their misconduct.
According to what I've heard narrated from the Mahabharata, Bheeshma was a Vasu (a celestial, connected with fire I think) who was born as a human. His knowledge of Dharma is very perfect - so perfect that Krishna tells the Pandavas to ask the dying Bheeshma any and all questions on Dharma that they might have before he passes. From what one grandparent told me, Krishna tells the Five that no one remaining in that Yuga is as knowledgeable on the matter of the Vedas and Shastras as Bheeshma, and that the extent of his expertise on these matters is unrivalled and will disappear unless they ask their questions and preserve it for future generations. This is when the Pandavas start asking all the questions they can think of (including many they know the answer to already) while Bheeshma answers them from his bed of arrows.
For Bheeshma - who is not only well-versed in matters of Dharma, but also keenly (and innately) aware of right and wrong - to make such a mistake as to not rush to Draupadi's defense, would really have required more than a twisting of his arm or a threat: no physical obstacles could have ever held him back from what he ought to have done. Rather, it would've had to have been something that affected his being able to <i>act</i> on his sense of Dharma, or even something that temporarily prevented him from <i>recognising</i> right from wrong. And this is what he seems to be referring to when he uses "clouded" and says (#105):
"Through that impure food my chitta was clouded with their vRttis. So, <b>even as I knew the dharma</b>, I was far from it, because of the food I ate."
I think it is a powerful example of how even the most Dharmic of individuals becomes powerless to do what's right when their sense of right and wrong becomes misplaced or clouded over - even if only temporarily. Nothing else could have had such an unfortunate effect on Bheeshma.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->While Krishna follows all the code of conduct as suitable to an ambessador and as royal guest, but that is except for taking their food. Krishna refused to eat Duryodhan's food, and instead went to the house of Vidur uninvited, and ate the banana-peels from the hands of the devoted vidurANI.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Loved it. Thanks for that, Bodhi. More more.
Gods would never reside with adharmics (just as Lakshmi - and all that she presides over - is known not to stay where she is not respected). God eating your food is a sign of his/her affection as well as of their approving of your conduct. Kauravas did not get that stamp for good behaviour. But Vidura lives very much in accordance with Dharma. Besides, as you've written, the presence of a great Bhakta (Vidura's wife) is definite to attract Krishna in her own right.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Though literal translation of anna = rice, in some communities (especially mine) anna is loosely used for meal. (And what Bodhi said)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I see. That does explain why some of my relatives were referring to non-rice as anna too.... That also makes more sense in the contexts of Annapoorna and Annalakshmi. Cool.