Mahabharata Related Discussions

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#61

Moved to MM forum from DBSK

Edited by .Vrish. - 13 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#62

Recalling how DBSK had no Karna in their Mahabharata track inspired a thought experiment.

While doing any serial, there is the cast, and for something like this, the cast would be huge. So if one wanted to do the story w/ the absolute minumum #characters, who do you think has to be in it?

For starters, I'd say

Pandavas
Draupadi
Duryodhan

Now, others can keep adding to the cast list on who absolutely has to be there, for there to be a story.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#63

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
Recalling how DBSK had no Karna in their Mahabharata track inspired a thought experiment.

While doing any serial, there is the cast, and for something like this, the cast would be huge. So if one wanted to do the story w/ the absolute minumum #characters, who do you think has to be in it?

For starters, I'd say
Pandavas
Draupadi
Duryodhan
Now, others can keep adding to the cast list on who absolutely has to be there, for there to be a story.

I can better you Vrish. 👍🏼

I'd just have Vyasa writing the MB while a background voice narrates the whole story in one long insipid monologue. 😆

Obviously, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to guess how the serial would fare , but as a bonus we wouldn't have Aamods, Latas, Doubting Thomases and Servile Sudamas.

As an additional bonus if the serial ever got a look-in @ I-F, I would be the sole moderator, viewbie, coolbie, cool-view-everything else- bie😆

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#64

You joke, but in both the Ramayan serials, that's precisely what Valmiki did after Kush & Luv were re-united w/ Rama - they just showed Valmiki narrating how Rama made all his sons and nephews kings b4 moving to the part of Durvasa & Lakshman. (Never mind that that Valmiki too was too lazy to narrate Bharat's conquest of Gandhara, or Rama-Lakshman's conquest of Karupadha desh - much less show it.)

The advantage of such a serial is that they could put in on radio Or for a podcast, just have a still photo of Vyasa writing (like the album covers that some audio CDs display if you try playing them on your PC under Windows Media Player) while Vyasa just reads everything.

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#65

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Another question:

When Pandu died, why didn't Satyavati simply suggest to Bheeshma that Dhritarashtra be bypassed in favor of Bahlika/Somadatta/Bhurishrava?

Bahalika had been adopted into his maternal uncle's family. Hence he was no longer a Kuru Vanshi. In so far as even if there was one legit Kuru heir living (in this case there were 105), the kingdom could not automatically be handed over to the Bahalikas.

At the time of Pandu's death, the 100 Kauravas and the 5 Pandavas were very much alive. Hence they would have the first claim over the throne. In fact Yudhishthira, being the eldest son of the last king on the throne, would have had unquestioned right over the kingship.

The situation was more tricky in the previous generation when after both Chitrangada and Vichitraveerya's death, there was actually no direct heir to the throne living. A question of the Kuru dynasty coming to an end would have loomed large but rather than allow Hastinapur to be merged with some other kingdom (for e.g the Bahalikas), Satyavati chose to continue the lineage thru her genes.

Question to you : Is it mentioned anywhere in the MB the Dritarashtra was crowned as the king after Pandu's death?

Edited by varaali - 13 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#66

Turns out to be a fantastic question - I could find nothing in the MB that explicitly states that Dhritarashtra was crowned - either when Pandu went into exile, or later. But if he wasn't, on what basis did Bheeshma act on his allegiance towards him, rather than Yudhisthir? And also, when Yudhisthir came of age, shouldn't he have automatically become king itself, instead of Yuvraj? Bheeshma could have been the interim ruler b/w Pandu and Yudhisthir, in such a case?

As an aside, reading about Pandu's statements after he abdicated, he resolved to live exactly like Sudama was depicted as living in the serial - begging in 10 homes, not visiting any home twice, etc. If DBSK was that fascinated w/ begging, they could have had Ram Bahadur play Pandu, and entertained us w/ several weeks of him. 😈

Edited by .Vrish. - 13 years ago

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#67

Precisely. That was what I too was wondering. But let's analyze the situation a little further.

Pandu abdicated the throne. Which means Yudhishthira would also have lost all rights to the throne had a proper ruler succeeded Pandu. Had Dritarashtra been perfectly able bodied and suceeded the throne after Pandu's abdication, his son, Duryodhan, would have been the natural heir. (Of course, one could argue that had Dritarashtra been perfectly fine, Pandu would not have been the king in the first place)

But as it turned out, after Pandu's abdication, there was no proper king crowned in Hastinapur (Dritarashtra having been debarred because of his blindness). So neither Duryodhan nor Yudhishthira had any automatic claim over the kingship and hence when Bhishma was mulling over who to choose (b/w Yudhishthira and Bhima) each felt he had as equal a claim as the other.

Edited by varaali - 13 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#68

Ok, but how does that explain Bheeshma's loyalty towards Dhritarashtra, and what he wanted? Logically, if the Hastinapur throne was empty, Bheeshma should have been free to make his judgement calls. In other words, if he thought that Duryodhan was evil, he should have felt free to join the Pandavas in the war.

Okay, someone else's turn to dig - can anyone pinpoint the exact vows Bheeshma ever made wrt the Hastinapur throne, aside from his Brahmachari vow to Satyavati's father? Who/what exactly did he swear allegance to, that resulted in him having to fight for the side that he abhorred?

PS: citation of serials, such as BRC, is not allowed here

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#69

From the SOC thread

Originally posted by: varaali
Correct 👏. All the other astras were used by Arjuna, while the Shakti was used by Karna.

I remember reading that Sudakshina was killed by Arjuna using the Mahendra-Astra. Since I was relying on my memory while framing the question, I may have been wrong. Will be happy to be corrected.

I think Bhagadutta was handicapped enough by his age. It is said that his forehead was so wrinkled that he had to tie a silken kerchief to prevent them from falling over his eyes. This was the disadvantage that Arjuna siezed. Arjuna, with a well aimed shaft, cut the kerchief which caused the folds on the kings forehead to fall over his eyes and he could not see anything in front of him. Arjuna then killed with an arrow which pierced his chest.

I've read this account, but as usual, doing my periodic analysis of Bhagadatta, Narakasura, Krishna & Arjun somehow makes this 'aged' problem of Bhagadatta seem fallacious. I'll use both MB and SB for this analysis.

For starters, let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that Krishna & Arjun were approximately the same age. Since Krishna was b/w Bhima & Arjun age wise, this is a somewhat valid approximation.

Now, when is Bhagadatta first mentioned in SB? It was following the killing of Narakasura. Following his death, Bhoomi Devi brought Bhagadatta to him, and took refuge in him. Krishna installed Bhagadatta on his father's throne, and asked him to return everything that his father had ransacked - Aditi's earrings, Varuna's umbrella, Indra's elephants and so on. And of course, the 16,100 concubines of Narakasura.

In that description, Bhagadatta was described as young, a boy, who was brought to Krishna's refuge. He certainly was not the same age as Krishna. Krishna apparently gave him the Vaishnav astra (not narrated in SB, but narrated in MB in the 12th day of the war, in Drona Parva), so obviously, Bhagadatta was much younger to Krishna.

Consequently, it would turn out that he'd be much younger to Arjun as well. Yet, he had to keep his eyes open w/ his handkerchief, while Arjun had no such problems. The age of the Pandavas & Krishna were probably in their 60s (Dronacharya's age was 85), and so Bhagadatta would have been in his 50s or 60s. And yet, the description of him is that of someone who was probably in his 90s, if not older.

Somehow, it's just not adding up.

Edited by .Vrish. - 13 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#70

Two things have always struck me about the Kurukshetra war:

The overwhelming majority of warriors on the Pandava side were slain by either Drona or Ashwatthama. Other warriors hardly killed anybody. Yeah, Karna killed Ghatotkacha, Shrutakarna killed Abhimanyu, Alambusha killed Iravana, Shalya killed Uttar, Bheeshma killed Sveta & Virata's brother Satanika, and Bhurishrava killing Satyaki's 10 sons and Duryodhan killing Chekitan, but other than that, every major Pandava warrior who was killed in that war died @ the hands of either Drona or Ashwatthama
On the other end of things, all the killing of Kaurava warriors were done by Bhima & Arjun. The notable exceptions here - Abhimanyu killing a few warriors including Laxman and Brihadbala, Satyaki killing Bhurishrava and Somadatta, Dhrishtadyumna killing Drona, Yudhisthir killing Shalya and Sahadev killing Shakuni. Other than that, any other major Kaurava warrior you name, and chances are that either Bhima or Arjun killed them.

For such a major war, this seems mighty strange. In the Ramayan war, all the warriors - Rama, Lakshman, Hanuman, Sugreev, Angad, Nala, Neela and so on had major rakshasha scalps to their credit. In this war, Bhima & Arjun couldn't be everywhere, but the bulk of the killings were done by them. On the Kaurava side, take out Drona & Ashwatthama, & the Pandava army would have largely been intact.

Is there any good explanation as to why 4 warriors - Drona, Ashwatthama, Arjun and Bhima - got to do the bulk of the killing in this war?