Dharmakshetra on Epic channel #4/ DT Nt pg 3 - Page 26

Originally posted by: Adishakti

Sahadeva,

Worst husband. Sahadeva had a boon that he knows the future. Yudhishtir could only assume that DDSK will I'll treat them or they may misbehave with Draupadi. Sahadeva knew for sure what was going to happen to Draupadi, yet didn't do anything to prevent it

Yes he also had the curse that if he told anyone the future his head will burst. But to save his own life he let his wife get molested. Even if he didn't tell anyone he could have found some way of preventing Draupadi from coming to hastinapur with them. He was supposed to be the most intelligent pandava, but what use is intelligence if it can't save his own wife

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

hmm but Maverick Bhishma is kunti's father in law not father.I mane he is connected to kunti because of pandu

Kunti's father thinking of Karna as his grandson because he is Kunti's son is understandable

But for father in law the son of his son will be grandson especially in that daY and age .Relationship with daughter in law isn't direct but through the son

So if Bhishma thinks of Karna as his grandson as per ordinance it atleast to me means he considers' him pandu's son.Another man's son wont his grandson.

Regarding Karna citation yes of course he considers himself Adiratha's son only and refuses to abandon him but discussion was what if karna did abandon Adiratha or Adiratha abandoned Karna the what?Karna refuses to live as pandu's son that is clear but the very fact that krishna ji offer's karna the tHrone is because krishna ji knows karna's claim on throne is strong if he abandons adiratha and becomes pandu's son.But karna refused for that

see my point is krishna ji says that your are son of pandu to which karna agrees as he knows as per rule this is true but since he was abandoned he refuses to accept it and chooses to live as adiratha's son only

In short what i am trying to say is that had Karna accepted Krishna ji offer and abandoned Adiratha or vice versa then his claim on the throne was strong not perfect though but strong.

There is no denying that Karna was Kanina son of Kunti , can the ties of blood be falsified ? Karna was Kunti and Pandu's son (morally) which he himself agrees and says it but he also says , he was abandoned by Kunti on Surya's command.

Here the question should be : a) to whom/which set of parents will he do a Pindadaan ??
b) Does he have a claim on Kuru throne?

That Krishna or Bhishma didn't know Shastra/ordinance is never a doubt, then why Krishna in particular approaches Karna and he only tells K that he is Kanina son of Pandu but doesn't mention that the abandonment ? You give it a thought ..

If you have agreed that Kunti approached Karna as a political move than Krishna approaching Karna is also a political move, after all both Kunti and Krishna are saying similar things, no?

Karna is Kanina (but abandoned) son of Pandu. That makes Karna a Kritrima/made son of Adhiratha by the virtue of Adhiratha finding and rearing him. Karna, therefore is not a claimant to the throne because of abandonment

Now lets not start blaming only Kunti again for this abandonment . If I am not wrong we have discussed this before (DK #2) I blame Surya as much as Kunti
Krishna asserts the humility of Pandavas and their children again and again and requests Karna to shift sides. The children of Draupadi and Saubhadra will fall at your feet!
These things are easier said than done 😊
" For those harsh words, O Krishna, that I said before unto the sons of Pandu for the gratification of Dhritarashtra's son,--for that wicked conduct of mine,--I am consumed with repentance."
(5-141, KMG; Karna to Krishna) Lets say Karna shifts sides . Is it easy to live with it?

Have you read Anushasana parva 49 yet? anyways , read citation below ; its long, please bear with me . Its better we read full details

"Yudhishthira said, 'Some say that one's son is he that is born in one's soil. Some, on the other hand, say that one's son is he who has been begotten from one's seed. Are both these kinds of sons equal? Who again, is the son to be? Do thou tell me this, O grandsire!

"Bhishma said, 'His is the son from whose seed he has sprung. If, however, the owner of the seed abandons the son born of it, such a son then becomes his upon whose spouse he has been begotten. The same rule applies to the son called Adhyudha. He belongs to the person from whose seed he has taken his birth. If, however, the owner of the seed abandons him, he becomes the son of the husband of his mother. Know that even this is what the law declares.'

"Yudhishthira said, 'We know that the son becomes his from whose seed he has taken birth. Whence does the husband of the woman that brings forth the son derive his right to the latter? Similarly, the son called Adhyudha should be known to be the son of him from whose seed he has sprung. How can they be sons of others by reasons of the engagement about owning and rearing them having been broken?'

"Bhishma said, 'He who having begotten a son of his own loins, abandons him for some reason or other, cannot be regarded as the sire of such a son, for vital seed only cannot create sonship. Such a son must be held to belong to the person who owns the soil. When a man, desiring to have a son, weds a girl quick with child, the son born of his spouse must belong to him, for it is the fruit of his own soil. The person from whose vital seed the son has sprung can have no right to such a son. The son that is born in one's soil but not begotten by the owner, O chief of Bharata's race, bears all the marks of the sire that has actually begotten him (and not the marks of one that is only the husband of his mother). The son thus born is incapable of concealing the evidences that physiognomy offers. He is at once known by eyesight (to belong to another). 1 As regards the son made, he is sometimes regarded as the child of the person who has made him a son and so brings him up. In his case, neither the vital seed of which he is born nor the soil in which he is born, becomes the cause of sonship.'

(Note this important question and the answer so very important!)

"Yudhishthira said, 'What kind of a son is that who is said to be a made son and whose sonship arises from the fact of his being taken and brought up and in whose case neither the vital seed nor the soil of birth, O Bharata, is regarded as the cause of sonship?'
"Bhishma said, 'When a person takes up and rears a son that has been cast off on the road by his father and mother, and when the person thus taking and rearing him fails to find out his parents after search, he becomes the father of such a son and the latter becomes what is called his made son. Not having anybody to own him, he becomes owned by him who brings him up. Such a son, again, comes to be regarded as belonging to that order to which his owner or rearer belongs.'

"Yudhishthira said, How should the purificatory rites of such a person be performed? In whose case what sort of rites are to be performed? With what girl should he be wedded? Do thou tell me all this, O grandsire!"

"Bhishma said, 'The rites of purification touching such a son should be performed conformably to the usage of the person himself that raises him, for, cast off by his parents, such a son obtains the order of the person that takes him and brings him up. Indeed, O thou of unfading glory, the rearer should perform all the purificatory rites with respect to such a son according to the practices of the rearer's own race and kinsmen.

PS: Purificatory rites is ShrAddhaa
So its clear that Karna belonged to Adhiratha and Radha, they are the one who have the right to get the Pindadaan , not Kunti and Pandu

Ok now : "Regarding Karna citation yes of course he considers himself Adiratha's son only and refuses to abandon him but discussion was what if karna did abandon Adiratha or Adiratha abandoned Karna the what?Karna refuses to live as pandu's son that is clear but the very fact that krishna ji offer's karna the tHrone is because krishna ji knows karna's claim on throne is strong if he abandons adiratha and becomes pandu's son.But karna refused for that"

What if Karna abandons Adhiratha?! 😕 Who wants Karna to do such an ungrateful act?
If he abandons Adhiratha, what glory is there in this? A father who takes care of Karna , gets him educated and even sends his other sons to fight along side him and die for , in wars, without questioning, gets rewarded pretty much!! Thank God Karna didn't do it , its a double edged sword, hurts either ways

Originally posted by: Arijit007

ok, can anyone prepare the chargesheet of nakul and sahdev???

Originally posted by: Arijit007

kahaan ho tum sab?

Originally posted by: ltelidevaralak

i want to participate

Originally posted by: ltelidevaralak

I am participating for the first time I am ma phd in Sanskrit done research in Mahabharata and got PhDsPhDs

Originally posted by: ltelidevaralak

I am participating for the first time I am ma phd in Sanskrit done research in Mahabharata and got PhDsPhDs

1. Originally posted by: ltelidevaralak

   I am participating for the first time I am ma phd in Sanskrit done research in Mahabharata and got PhDsPhDs

   actually arjun never said anything about sharing he just said that he would never marry before his elder brothers . That does not mean that he asked Yudhi to marry Draupadi. And drupad never asked Yuchi first to marry Draupadi. He expressed his wish to perform the marriage of drau with arjun , then yudhisaid he also has to marry ,Draupadi said Yuchi can marry in that case,drupad strongly wished to have arjun as his soninlaw, it was mentioned in the original as well as other versions like telugu mahabharat, Draupadi heart fully wished to be the wife of the best archer.she willingly placed the garland round his neck. Vedvyasa described them as Sachs and Indra ,Lakshmi and Vishnu etc.i read here something like Draupadi wanted to marry Yuchi as she got special talents.drau was never described as one who would give more importance to anything other than her fathers oath of swayamvar according to which piercing the target is the foremost requirement. One more thing isat the time of swayamvara Yuchi has no kingdom to rule.so don't attribute such things to Draupadi that are outright not nearer to truth.Thereare umpteen evidences where Draupadi exposes her love for arjun that I found both in the original and other adoptions.If you read bheegi's the love that was lost in translation ,it was so authentic and nearer to facts.I would like to post the incidents in my next post.