Why Parikshit? - Page 10

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Can you post citation where Panchali talks about upapandavas? I just checked CE and don't see it at all.

My laptop s not working, i am using mobile, I don’t know how to post from mobile,i read kmg few years back there i am not saying she was particularly talking about upapandavas to satya r Krishna, I know it’s krishnaa and satya who assures her, but when she was talking about stree dharma with satya she talks about her brief life in ip where she mentions about upapandavas and how she used to serve their fathers. And even then krshna and satya themselves never talks about suthanu but they did assures her about sons, that’s what i am saying.

Originally posted by: swathi90

That’s true with so many versions and contradictions it’s difficult to say what s true, what s folklore . And mahabharat s like big puzzle.

i am fyn adhya, h r u?
Wish this corona s just nightmare, 2020 s not something we ll ever forget.

Yeah this year is turning out be quite bad. Nevertheless i hope we can slowly but steadily get back to normal life

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Yeah this year is turning out be quite bad. Nevertheless i hope we can slowly but steadily get back to normal life

Hopefully very soon😊

Originally posted by: swathi90

My laptop s not working, i am using mobile, I don’t know how to post from mobile,i read kmg few years back there i am not saying she was particularly talking about upapandavas to satya r Krishna, I know it’s krishnaa and satya who assures her, but when she was talking about stree dharma with satya she talks about her brief life in ip where she mentions about upapandavas and how she used to serve their fathers. And even then krshna and satya themselves never talks about suthanu but they did assures her about sons, that’s what i am saying.

I think you must be remembering Panchali said sons, but she was talking about KRISHNA'S sons, not her own.

She doesn't mention any of her children.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03231.htm

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I think you must be remembering Panchali said sons, but she was talking about KRISHNA'S sons, not her own.

She doesn't mention any of her children.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03231.htm

No I remember reading about mentioning her sons only, because here she particularly talks about her relationship with her sons and pandavas, back then i think it was during starbharat time, there we particularly talked about this, here she talks about upapandavas and her relationship with them, she particularly here says how a woman should take care of sons and husband, she explains clearly to satya here, some of us even discussed about this. Here she taughts about stree dharma as mother and wife to satya when satya asks her y pandavas r so devoted to her. And gives brief insight about her Ip life. There she explains how she as mother and wife lead her life in Ip.

Originally posted by: swathi90

No I remember reading about mentioning her sons only, because here she particularly talks about her relationship with her sons and pandavas, back then i think it was during starbharat time, there we particularly talked about this, here she talks about upapandavas and her relationship with them, she particularly here says how a woman should take care of sons and husband, she explains clearly to satya here, some of us even discussed about this. Here she taughts about stree dharma as mother and wife to satya when satya asks her y pandavas r so devoted to her. And gives brief insight about her Ip life. There she explains how she as mother and wife lead her life in Ip.

Well it's not in KMG OR CE. Maybe someone can check Gita press or southern recension

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Because of 2 reasons. 1) his age is the only age actually mentioned in MBh

2) If we remove divine angle, there is no way a man older than that could've caused the havoc Bheeshma did. Cataract, arthritis... these kind of things take a toll. Human body is human body.

Now, if you don't believe biology and physics had roles in it, there is no argument. When it's divinely ordained, anything can happen.

If we stick to regular laws which govern the universe, Abhimanyu being 23 is fine but you actually said 33 before. If Arjuna was in mid 40s by war and Abhimanyu 33, that means Abhimanyu was born when Arjuna was 12! That is, he met Subhadra at 11. Even if we take exile as 13 months, Arjuna met Uloopi at the beginning of exile which means he was 10. If you take exile as 12 years, Arjuna would have had to meet Uloopi as an infant!

Whereas if Arjuna was 45 by war, Abhimanyu 18-23, and first exile 13 months, the timeline works out.

______________________

I don't know how to explain the math any better than this.

if you still choose to believe Abhimanyu was 33, more power to you.

90 is not exactly an age where people pull off stunt which Bheeshma did, is it that Bheeshma at 90 is the most powerful person but at 97, he can't do anything, same goes of Drona at 85, which old man can do what these two did at 85 and 90?

So, Biology and Physics allow Bheeshma and Drona to be a nightmare at 90 but not if they are 97?

I believe in Biology and Physics but I take Mahabharata as a story where older = More powerful, is the consensus, I don't believe a 90 years old man can do what Bheeshma did, Bheeshma being 97 doesn't really change anything for me personally

33 is what Dhrithrashra states for Arjuna having his Gandiva

How old was Arjuna when he went to Drona? Drona had a son too who studied with Arjuna and co

Let's say they were 10-16

How long did it take them to complete their education?

I don't know this one so I am taking 10 year's bracket

Arjuna 45 by the war and Abhimanyu can be 23 but if Abhimanyu is 30-33 then Arjuna is 52-55

The difference is only 7 years, 7 Years don't make a drastic change to decrease Arjuna's age when he met Subhadra, because Arjuna being 45 is not a constant and there's not much difference between 45 and 52 to bring about a huge change, it only adds 7 years

Now, one can believe whatever they want to, my maths Biology and Physics isn't weak, I am just adding years in their age during the war instead of reducing it from the earlier timeline, the method of calculation is different as I am not keeping Drona's age as a constant because other characters and incidents are challenged by this one point

I have more reasons to believe in citations, I have provided

I have listed the reasons with citations, I am not challenging your opinion, maths, Biology and Physics

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Mahabharata as written by Vyasa has two basic plot points.

1. Journey of Yudhishtir as a man, from a fatherless child at the mercy of relatives to his rise to be an emperor, than his downfall due to his own deeds, his repentance and fight for justice. His remorse at the final consequences and his eventual detachment and journey towards heaven

2. The war at Kurukshetra

If Vyasa only paid attention to the former the story would be a melodrama that not many people will be willing to pay attention to.

The war at Kurukshetra added the much needed action to grab people's attention to the lessons he wanted to impart from the story.

But over generations Mahabharata became. More about the war than life lessons from Yudhishtir.

So from the first narration by Vaishyampayana to even now whenever someone says Mahabharata the first question anyone asks why did the war happen

It is not who was Yudhishtir what is his story

War is story of men not women

Also the patriarchal society then and subsequent generations till now deemed women inconsequential and irrelevant in any story unless there is a major plot point revolving around them.

So we know Kunti's maiden name is Pritha because she gets adopted by Kuntibhoj but she is Vasudev's sister and there the heroes Pandavas are Krishna's cousins.

There is no similar plot point for Gandhari, so her proper name is never taken in the epic. Same with Madri. (Gandhari was a title for princess of Gandhar it was not her name, just like Kunti)

Shivaji Sawant or Kavitha Kane comes up on her own with a name for Karna's wife as Uruvi.

But there is no name for any of the wives of Karna or Duryodhan or Dusshasan anywhere in the epic.

We have the name of Duryodhan's daughter lakshmana in harivansh because it's a plot point to praise Balaram how he saved Samba by threatening Hastinapur by using his plough to drag Ganga to submerge the city.

There is no such story or plot point to praise the pandavas or Krishna or anybody else in case of Suthanu, so her name is not mentioned.

Dussala gets a mention because Gandhari's asks Vyasa to do a miracle and give her a daughter as well and her husband eventually turns out to be Jayadrath the great who is not punished for kidnapping Draupadi only because he is Dussala's husband.

Do you all really think there were no daughters born in that era and women only had sons. Where do you think Krishna's 8 wives, Arjun's 4 in the epic and atleast 7 otherwise as well as everyone's came from.

Because if we follow the logic of Bhagvatham where Shiva gives Krishna a boon that each of his wives will have 10 sons and 1 daughter and that Pandavas only had sons. Or Gandhari had only 1 daughter after 100 sons and Kunti had only 5, Krishna's father had 25 sons and only 1 daughter Pandavas had 15 plus sons and no daughter then half the male population in that era would have to be brahmachari.

There were daughters too being born, just that their birth was of no consequence to be even discussed till their presence had something to do with glory for their father or husband or son or brother

Completely agreed. Aside most of these kings had multiple wives while rarely any woman (if at all) had multiple husbands there definitely were daughters which were at least equal to the males

P.S. Duryodhan's wife is mentioned in SB

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Well it's not in KMG OR CE. Maybe someone can check Gita press or southern recension

But I remember reading kmg only, southern I never read. Y I remember this because we particularly talked about this stree dharma , and discussed what an amazing woman Draupadi was and how she balanced her life as mother and wife, even satya praises her for this, I wish I could provide u link now, but i ll try to contact some of forum members ( old form members) who had discussed about this, it’s been long actually almost 5 r 6 years, i ll try to ask them.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

90 is not exactly an age where people pull off stunt which Bheeshma did, is it that Bheeshma at 90 is the most powerful person but at 97, he can't do anything, same goes of Drona at 85, which old man can do what these two did at 85 and 90?

So, Biology and Physics allow Bheeshma and Drona to be a nightmare at 90 but not if they are 97?

I believe in Biology and Physics but I take Mahabharata as a story where older = More powerful, is the consensus

33 is what Dhrithrashra states for Arjuna having his Gandiva

How old was Arjuna when he went to Drona? Drona had a son too who studied with Arjuna and co

Let's say they were 10-16

How long did it take them to complete their education?

I don't know this one so I am taking 10 year's bracket

Arjuna 45 by the war and Abhimanyu can be 23 but Arjuna 52 and Abhimanyu 30

The difference is only 7 years, 7 Years don't make a drastic change to decrease Arjuna's age when he met Subhadra, because Arjuna being 45 is not a constant and there's not much difference between 45 and 52 to bring about a huge change, it only adds 7 years

Now, one can believe whatever they want to, my maths Biology and Physics isn't weak, I am just adding years in their age during the war instead of reducing it from the earlier timeline

I have listed the reasons with citations, I am not challenging your opinion

Diff between what I'm saying and what you're saying is you're picking a number 97 out of thin air.

It's not my OPINION that Drona was 85. It's given in text.

Even if Bheeshma was 97 AND magically in full possession of all his PHYSICAL as well as mental capabilities, he would still have been 66 at Khandav prastha by the 33-year timeframe you mentioned. Which would put Arjuna in his mid 20s by then. A 12-year exile would STILL put him in his early teens when he had Iravan. He would have been 8 to 10 years old when he went to Panchali swayamvara. 6 or 7 by the time he did Gurudakshina war.

While difference between 85 and 97 is practical terms may not be much, there is a huge difference between 6 to 12 and 26.

If we take exile as 13 months, then Arjuna would have been early 20s. it would still mean he was in his late teens when he went to swayamvara. He would have been in mid teens when he went on gurukashina war. Rigveda actually gives an age when men are supposed to have completed their studies. I believe it is 21 but not sure. It is somewhere in early to mid 20s for sure. Since all Pandavas had completed studies by gurudakshina war, we can assume Arjuna was at least 21.

There is no logical way to stretch Abhimanyu's age to 33 without using divine angle. It isn't an opinion. Laws of biology and physics say so.