Balaram on Dice Game - Page 11

Created

Last reply

Replies

223

Views

10.1k

Users

12

Likes

290

Frequent Posters

Chiillii thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Visit Streak 90 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 5 years ago

Abhimanyu was never declared crown prince. Atleast I have never read that in any single text of Mahabharata.


Satyaki says in Vanaparva that let Yadava attack and take back the kingdom and Abhimanyu can rule till you finish exile.


How does that make Abhimanyu heir.

Even if he is born first he cannot be heir. Kings throne went to his son. That was the whole basis of Yudhishtir's claim on throne. That he was King's son,


And yes Yudhishtir did not reach heaven in his mortal body.

Swargarohan Parva clearly says he discarded his mortal body in Vaitarni River and then proceeds to heaven where he sees Kourava and Pandavas merging with their original forms


And that heaven and hell and heaven he sees before this is an illusion by Dharmaraj


People who have not read swargarohan Parva falsely believe he reached heaven in his mortal body.

He reaches the base of heaven in his mortal body when Dharma comes and takes him in his chariot and proceeds to show him illusions of hell with his brothers and heaven with kouravas.


He goes to heaven just like everybody else after casting off his body

Agni_Jytsona thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Abhimanyu was never declared crown prince. Atleast I have never read that in any single text of Mahabharata.


Satyaki says in Vanaparva that let Yadava attack and take back the kingdom and Abhimanyu can rule till you finish exile.


How does that make Abhimanyu heir.

Even if he is born first he cannot be heir. Kings throne went to his son. That was the whole basis of Yudhishtir's claim on throne. That he was King's son,


And yes Yudhishtir did not reach heaven in his mortal body.

Swargarohan Parva clearly says he discarded his mortal body in Vaitarni River and then proceeds to heaven where he sees Kourava and Pandavas merging with their original forms


And that heaven and hell and heaven he sees before this is an illusion by Dharmaraj


People who have not read swargarohan Parva falsely believe he reached heaven in his mortal body.

He reaches the base of heaven in his mortal body when Dharma comes and takes him in his chariot and proceeds to show him illusions of hell with his brothers and heaven with kouravas.


He goes to heaven just like everybody else after casting off his body

Then why abhimanyu rule till yudhishtra finish his exile ?? Why not prativindhya ??

On another note i am coming to conclusion that prakishit didn't ended up inheriting everything.

Because text talks about vajra getting ip from maternal side probably and Mathura from paternal and prakishit hastinapur

This son of thy son will be the king of the Kurus. The survivor of the Yadus, Vajra, has been made a king. Parikshit will rule in Hastinapura, while the Yadava prince, Vajra, will rule in Shakraprastha. He should be protected by thee. Never set thy heart on unrighteousness.’


And then there are articles about prativindhya s descendants getting a part of kingdom so i think everything was divided between sons and grandson

Plus i have read about shatanik and his descendants reviving panchala kingdom.

Edited by Poorabhforever - 5 years ago
NoraSM thumbnail
Sparkler Thumbnail 6th Anniversary Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 5 years ago

Duryodhan asking Bheema and Arjuna, Duryodhan refusing to give pandavas their throne, Duryodhan refusing peace offering wasn't Draupadi's plan, She was politically sound and I personally believe not a single Pandava was more intelligent than her but I don't buy that war was her plan to get justice


In Dyut, Draupadi's reasonings did not free her or Pandavas, because they didn't prove if she was a slave or not...


Bheeshma said before and after Vashtraharan that it was upto Yudi to decide whether he had Right on Draupadi or not


'It seemeth to me, however, that Yudhishthira is an authority on this question. It behoveth him to declare whether thou art won or not won."


That was clear hint to Yudi, a way to free Draupadi but Yudi didn't do it, even after Vastraharan, it was after Duryodhan said that he will accept it from any of the Pandavas, if they declare Yudi a liar and denounce his claim on them and Draupadi


"-O Yajnaseni, the question thou hast put dependeth on thy husbands--on Bhima of mighty strength, on Arjuna, on Nakula, on Sahadeva. Let them answer thy question. O Panchali, let them for thy sake declare in the midst of these respectable men that Yudhishthira is not their lord, let them thereby make king Yudhishthira the just a liar. Thou shalt then be freed from the condition of slavery. Let the illustrious son of Dharma, always adhering to virtue, who is even like Indra, himself declare whether he is not thy lord. At his words, accept thou the Pandavas or ourselves without delay. Indeed, all the Kauravas present in this assembly are floating in the ocean of thy distress. Endued with magnanimity, they are unable to answer thy question, looking at thy unfortunate husbands.'"



The point here is that Bheeshma was answerable to the throne

Bheeshma - Sakuni cheated

King - How?

Bheeshma - Because I say so


What Duryodhan did was give them a way out without answerability, he said they will accept if any brother or Yudi says that Draupadi wasn't won


Arjuna just said it, He wasn't answerable to any one and Dhritrashtra HAD to give her the boon




Its not like Pandavas didn't believe staking Draupadi was wrong, Bheema saying that he will burn Yudi's hand is evidence enough of how wrong he felt Yudi was


'"Bhima said,--'O Yudhishthira, gamblers have in their houses many women of loose character. They do not yet stake those women having kindness for them even.


He is clearly stating what he thinks of Yudi staking Draupadi and Them, more than this Yudi actually staked many serving women too -


"Yudhishthira said,--'I have a hundred thousand serving-girls, all young, and decked with golden bracelets on their wrists and upper arms, and with nishkas round their necks and other ornaments, adorned with costly garlands and attired in rich robes, daubed with the sandal paste, wearing jewels and gold, and well-skilled in the four and sixty elegant arts, especially versed in dancing and singing, and who wait upon and serve at my command the celestials, the Snataka Brahmanas, and kings. With this wealth, O king, I will stake with thee!'"


Arjuna blamed Yudi too, not only for their misery but Arjuna blames Yudi staking them for what Kaurava did too


Yet dice, which are worshipped by the wicked, thou couldst not abandon. It was for this that all of us have fallen into hell. We have never derived any happiness from thee since thou wert engaged in gambling with dice. Having, O son of Pandu, thyself caused all this calamity, thou art, again, addressing these harsh words to me. Slain by us, hostile troops are lying on the field, with mangled bodies and uttering loud wails. It was thou that didst that cruel act in consequence of which the Kauravas have become offenders and are being destroyed. Nations from the North, the West, the East, and the South, are being struck, wounded and slain, after the performance of incomparable feats in battle by great warriors of both sides. It was thou that hadst gambled. It was for thee that we lost our kingdom. Our calamity arose from thee, O king! Striking us, again, with the cruel goad of thy speeches, O king, do not provoke our wrath.'"



Arjuna states how unhappy they are because of Yudi, You see Yudi was an emotional manipulator, they couldn't say anything to him because he will commit suicide


After this, Just because Arjuna praises Bheema, Yudi starts his manipulation again and says they should give the throne to Bheema, how I wish Bheema was the King


'I am the worst of men, and the exterminator of my race. I am a wretch. I am addicted to wicked courses. I am of foolish understanding. I am idle and a coward. I am an insulter of the old. I am cruel. What wouldst thou gain by always being obedient to a cruel person like me? A wretch that I am, I shall this very day retire into the woods. Live you happily without me. The high-souled Bhimasena is fit to be king. A eunuch that I am, what shall I do with sovereignty? I am incapable of bearing these harsh speeches of thee excited with wrath. Let Bhima become king. Having been insulted thus, O hero, what use have I with life."


I am not against Draupadi or Pandavas, I just don't understand why didn't they just dump this idiot who kept manipulating them, Bheema would have been a million times better king than this Yudi

Edited by NoraSM - 5 years ago
1123225 thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

@Nora. Arjuna's support won the day because Suyodhana made that statement which was quite dumb of him.


But...


Suyodhana would not have made that statement if


1) Panchali didn't make an argument about Yudhishtira not having the right to stake her


2) She didn't make that argument about Shakuni cheating which would've invaildated the entire event. NOTE: Bheeshma actually disagrees Shakuni cheated. Bheeshma was arguing AGAINST Panchali and Pandavas


3) She didn't start a PR nightmare for Suyodhana by stressing over and over her status as the family's daughter-in-law than as Yudhishtira's wife. Assaulting a sister-in-law WAS a crime.


________________________


No, she couldn't have known how it would end. As she herself says later one has to at least try. If she failed that day, based on her arguments, Panchal and Krishna would have reason to attack.

________________________


Pandavas and Panchali could not abandon Yudhishtira because of society's rules. Bheema would have no legitimacy.

1123225 thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Abhimanyu was never declared crown prince. Atleast I have never read that in any single text of Mahabharata.


Satyaki says in Vanaparva that let Yadava attack and take back the kingdom and Abhimanyu can rule till you finish exile.


How does that make Abhimanyu heir.

Even if he is born first he cannot be heir. Kings throne went to his son. That was the whole basis of Yudhishtir's claim on throne. That he was King's son,


And yes Yudhishtir did not reach heaven in his mortal body.

Swargarohan Parva clearly says he discarded his mortal body in Vaitarni River and then proceeds to heaven where he sees Kourava and Pandavas merging with their original forms


And that heaven and hell and heaven he sees before this is an illusion by Dharmaraj


People who have not read swargarohan Parva falsely believe he reached heaven in his mortal body.

He reaches the base of heaven in his mortal body when Dharma comes and takes him in his chariot and proceeds to show him illusions of hell with his brothers and heaven with kouravas.


He goes to heaven just like everybody else after casting off his body


Given the number of times Abhimanyu is called Son of Krishna during war, he was probably adopted by Panchali. Since Yudhishtira had to agree, it would make Abhimanyu the eldest son of the emperor.

NoraSM thumbnail
Sparkler Thumbnail 6th Anniversary Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

@Nora. Arjuna's support won the day because Suyodhana made that statement which was quite dumb of him.


But...


Suyodhana would not have made that statement if


1) Panchali didn't make an argument about Yudhishtira not having the right to stake her


2) She didn't make that argument about Shakuni cheating which would've invaildated the entire event. NOTE: Bheeshma actually disagrees Shakuni cheated. Bheeshma was arguing AGAINST Panchali and Pandavas


3) She didn't start a PR nightmare for Suyodhana by stressing over and over her status as the family's daughter-in-law than as Yudhishtira's wife. Assaulting a sister-in-law WAS a crime.


________________________


No, she couldn't have known how it would end. As she herself says later one has to at least try. If she failed that day, based on her arguments, Panchal and Krishna would have reason to attack.

________________________


Pandavas and Panchali could not abandon Yudhishtira because of society's rules. Bheema would have no legitimacy.


There's no denying that Panchali was probably the most intelligent human being there, I rate her above Krishna too as I loved her version of Geeta


Bheeshma couldn't lie about sakuni cheating, he was answerable to the throne, how would he prove that Sakuni cheated? Lying was a sin and Bheeshma would have been a traitor for lying to the throne, the fact is that Sakuni didn't cheat, he gave them a way out by repeating that Yudi can say that Sakuni cheated but Yudi didn't do it, He gave them a way out

Arjuna could say it because nobody cross questioned him as Dury said he will take him for his words


One can't just blame someone for cheating, Draupadi's both attempts failed because of Yudi


I understand Bheema didn't have legitimacy, I am just saying that he would have been a million times better king


The only person I can never support is Yudi, he made their lives miserable

FlauntPessimism thumbnail
Screen Detective Participant Thumbnail ICC T20 CWC 2024 Match Winner Thumbnail + 9
Posted: 5 years ago

My point is simple. There are only two possibilities...


Possibility 1-- Yudhishtir didn't have the right to stake Draupadi after getting enslaved, hence Draupadi wasn't a slave.

In such scenario, Yudhishtir did the crime of staking a free woman (despite having no rights) and KaDuDuNi did the crime of disrespecting, disrobing and advancing to a noble free woman


Possibility 2-- Despite being a slave, Yudhishtir still had the right to stake his wife, then Draupadi after being lost was a slave woman

In this case, Yudhishtir didn't do any crime (although did something morally wrong) and KADUDUNI summoned, advanced or ordered the disrobe of a slave woman, which wasn't a crime (although was morally wrong)


Either case-- All five i.e. Yudhishtir+KaDuDuNi lie in the same zone.

Either all five did crime or all five did not do any crime (but they all did something morally wrong)


There is no way we could say Yudhishtir was only a mistake/morally wrong and not a crime and KaDuDuNi were doing crime or vice versa

Edited by FlauntPessimism - 5 years ago
FlauntPessimism thumbnail
Screen Detective Participant Thumbnail ICC T20 CWC 2024 Match Winner Thumbnail + 9
Posted: 5 years ago

Why did Bheem not have any legitimacy in the absence of Yudhishtir?

He was the son of Pandu and was elder to Duryodhan.


How is claim any different from the of Yudhishtir, considering that Yudhishtir either died or was somehow removed from picture

1123225 thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: NoraSM


There's no denying that Panchali was probably the most intelligent human being there, I rate her above Krishna too as I loved her version of Geeta


Bheeshma couldn't lie about sakuni cheating, he was answerable to the throne, how would he prove that Sakuni cheated? Lying was a sin and Bheeshma would have been a traitor for lying to the throne, the fact is that Sakuni didn't cheat, he gave them a way out by repeating that Yudi can say that Sakuni cheated but Yudi didn't do it, He gave them a way out

Arjuna could say it because nobody cross questioned him as Dury said he will take him for his words


One can't just blame someone for cheating, Draupadi's both attempts failed because of Yudi


I understand Bheema didn't have legitimacy, I am just saying that he would have been a million times better king


The only person I can never support is Yudi, he made their lives miserable


@ Bold. I am not supporting Yudhishtira at all. My ideal for Panchali will always be she got to rule on her own. As far as romantic partner is concerned, my preference would be Krishna though I consider even him slightly less than her. Next would be Sahdev, then Arjuna.


@Blue. Yes, one definitely can. Especially if one is in danger of being made a slave and sexually assaulted. I wouldn't expect anyone to go into tragedy just to keep themselves free from the sin of lying. Dharma/morality does not exist in vacuum. It has to be applied to the real word, considering real consequences. Which is what Panchali argued, and Bheeshma immediately claimed dharma was whatever the powerful said it was. He was prepared to let his granddaughter-in-law be assaulted rather than commit the "sin" of lying. None of them understood dharma like she did, and Bheeshma at the very least was culpable of putting his ego before preventing a crime (same as Yudhishtira). At worst, Bheeshma was complicit with the criminals.


@Red. I blame Bheeshma mostly for above reasons, but yes, Yudhishtira, too. He SAW what the Kauravas planned for Panchali and still chose to stay silent. But I won't give Bheeshma any credit for giving Yudhishtira an out. They all lived in the same era, and Bheeshma knew his grandson. They all knew the emperor wouldn't take the out. Arjuna was the unexpected element in the scene.

Edited by HearMeRoar - 5 years ago
1123225 thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Why did Bheem not have any legitimacy in the absence of Yudhishtir?

He was the son of Pandu and was elder to Duryodhan.


How is claim any different from the of Yudhishtir, considering that Yudhishtir either died or was somehow removed from picture


Panchali says she wants the same thing😆. For the younger 4 to lock up Yudhishtira and rule the empire. She also adds they wouldn't.


Bheema would lack legitimacy because none of his family would support him.


Panchali's statement of what she wished would happen should make clear what she wanted in ideal situation. It simply wasn't possible because 1) per rules, there was no crime and 2) none of the Pandavas would support the move.

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".