Welcome to the forum!!

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

1123225

Hibernated

Posted: 7 years ago

#131

Nope. You're changing the topic. We were talking about Krishna's offer, and how it had to be false, because Krishna had no legal standing to offer, and Karna had no legal standing to accept.

FYI

Dhrithrasthra was never king. So Suyodhana may have been his father's heir, but he wasn't heir to the throne.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05149.htm

All in all,Yudhishtira- who I despise, btw - still was the rightful emperor.

________

Still waiting for the Sanskrit verse of the offer and its translation word by word. Meaning, it is not enough to copy and paste from Debroy

_________

Again, how does any of this refute the fact that Karna was a criminal?

Edited by MahanalayakKarn - 7 years ago

Quote

1123225

Hibernated

Posted: 7 years ago

#132

😆

One, I gave you the link that Dhritharashtra was not king. He was regent.

Two, even if he were:

Only about Hastinapur could there be any contest.

The 1st time, Bheeshma and Vidura made Yudhishtira the crown prince. He didn't ask for it. The 2nd time, the Kauravas were afraid of Pandavas attacking to retaliate for the murder attempt, so they split the kingdom.

Pandavas built the EMPIRE. Not Kuru vansh. It didn't belong to Dhritharashtra for it go to his son.

Karna and Kauravas stole it.

______

Once again, waiting for Sanskrit expert to provide the offer verse and its word-for-word translation.

Edited by MahanalayakKarn - 7 years ago

Quote

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

Priya_Vrisha

@Priya_Vrisha

Beginner

Posted: 7 years ago

#133

Hahaha

@Mahanalayak

Here is the verse

Shashte Twam Cha tatha kale Draupadi Upgamoshyati

Meaning -

Shashte - Sixth

Twam - you

Cha - and

Kale - period

Upagam - Intercourse ( Upgamoshyati - will intercoInte )

So, Meaning is - and (in) Sixth period Draupadi will ( have ) intercourse ( with) you

This is Sanskrit Dictionary for those who want to learn basic Sanskrit

http://spokensanskrit.org

Edited by Priya_Vrisha - 7 years ago

Quote

pd_am

@pd_am

Beginner

Posted: 7 years ago

#134

Originally posted by: RadheyaUruvi

Duryodhan and yudhistira are not in same boat

duryodhan was son of gandhari and her husband (dhritrashtra) plus he was son of king. Type-1

Yudhistira was son of kunti and other men. Type-2

Here type-1 comes first so duryodhan is real heir as per your own logic

RadheyaUruvi,

Confessions that Pandavas "snatched" the land of Duryodhan by adharma will come later on. First, please tell me, are you absolutely sure about the part in bold? Yeah, I know, Dhrit is called "King" in the epic multiple times. Even Dury is called "King" multiple times.

But I am asking particularly about "rightful inheritance", because, here is the confession of none other Dhritarashtra himself about his own status of Kingship, from K.M. Ganguly's translation, Udyog Parva, Section CXLIX:

With Vahlika's permission, O prince, Santanu of world-wide fame, on the death of his father (Pratipa), became king and ruled the kingdom. In this way also, O Bharata, though I am the eldest, yet being defective of a limb, I was excluded from the kingdom by intelligent Pandu, no doubt, after much reflection. And Pandu himself, though younger to me in age, obtained the kingdom and became king. At his death, O chastiser of foes, that kingdom must pass to his sons. When I could not obtain the kingdom, how canst thou covet it? Thou art not the son of a king, and, therefore, hast no right to this kingdom. Thou, however, desirest to appropriate the property of others. High-souled Yudhishthira is the son of a king. This kingdom is lawfully his. Of magnanimous soul, even he is the ruler and lord of this race of Kuru. He is devoted to truth, of clear perception, obedient to the counsels of friends, honest, loved by the subjects, kind to all well-wishers, master of his passions, and the chastiser of all that are not good. Forgiveness, renunciation, self-control, knowledge of the scriptures, mercy to all creatures, competence to rule according to the dictates of virtue, of all these attributes of royalty exist in Yudhishthira. Thou art not the son of a king, and art always sinfully inclined towards thy relatives. O wretch, how canst thou succeed in appropriating this kingdom that lawfully belongeth to others? Dispelling this delusion, give half the kingdom with (a share of the) animals and other possessions. Then, O king, mayest thou hope to live for some time with thy younger brothers.'"

Link: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05149.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, before you dismiss the above as fake/interpolation/interpretation/theory, etc, let me show you the same shloka from BORI's Critical Edition, translated by Bibek Debroy, Vol 4, Bhagwan Yana Parva, Chapter - 810 (47). I am assuming, just like your friends you too must have read both KMG and BORI "fully". So, feel free to cross-check -

O king! On Bahlika's instructions, after his father

had died, Shantanu, famous in the world, became the king and ruled the kingdom. O

descendant of the Bharata lineage! In the same way, I was the eldest, but was deficient in a

limb.87 After a great deal of reflection, the intelligent Pandu barred me from the kingdom.

Though he was younger to me, Pandu obtained the kingdom as a king. O destroyer of

enemies! On his death, the kingdom belongs to his sons. If I could not obtain the kingdom,

how can you desire the kingdom? This kingdom rightfully belongs to the great-souled PrinceYudhishthira. With his great qualities, he will be the protector of the lineage of the Kouravas. He is truthful. He is never distracted. He abides by the sacred texts. He is loved by his friends and is virtuous. He is loved by the subjects and is kind towards his well-wishers. He has

mastered his senses and is the protector of righteous ones. Forgiveness, patience, control,

uprightness, truthfulness to vows, learning, single-mindedness, compassion towards beings

and controlYudhishthira has all these qualities of a king. You are not the son of a king and

you are not an arya in your conduct. You are always greedy and evil-minded towards your

friends. You are insolent. How can you hope to seize a kingdom that, according to the line of

succession, belongs to another? Devoid of your delusion, give them half of the kingdom, with

the vehicles and the attendants. O Indra among men! The remainder will be enough for you

to obtain a living, together with your younger brothers.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------

You are claiming Duryodhan was the "son of a King". But sadly, poor Dhritashtra is saying something else! Any thoughts?

Edited by pd_am - 7 years ago

Quote

Priya_Vrisha

@Priya_Vrisha

Beginner

Posted: 7 years ago

#135

Yes I Agree @Mahanayak Karna

That Duryodhna was real Heir from the ooint of view of Pandu and karna was real heir from the pov of Krishna

Gambler and wife seller yudhiYudhi had no claim on Throne.

Quote

pd_am

@pd_am

Beginner

Posted: 7 years ago

#136

Originally posted by: Mahanayak-Karna
@pd_am

If dhritrashtra was not king then who was king? shakuni

"I shall now adopt the BRAMHCHARYA MODE of life and follow in the imperishable wake of my father"

Pandu had vowed to observe Bramhacharya mode of life. So the Pandavas, who didn't belong to the Kuru family, had no right to beg for the kingdom, as they were not Kurus and Pandu adopted them. It's a well-known fact that rights of inheritance always belong to biological offsprings (like the Kauravas), and not to adopted offsprings (like the Pandavas).

"UNTIL I LAY DOWN THIS BODY, I shall thus practise the severe ordinances of the Vanaprastha scriptures, always searching for severer ones that they may contain.' "Vaisampayana continued, 'The Kuru king, having said this unto his wives, gave away to Brahmanas the big jewel in his DIADEM, his necklace of precious gold, his bracelets, his large ear-rings, his valuable robes and all the ornaments of his wives. Then summoning his attendants, he commended them, saying, 'Return ye to Hastinapura and proclaim unto all that Pandu with his wives hath gone into the woods, FOREGOING WEALTH, desire, happiness, and even sexual appetite.' Then those followers and attendants, hearing these and other soft words of the king, set up a loud wail, uttering, 'Oh, we are undone!' Then with hot tears trickling down their cheeks they left the monarch and returned to Hastinapura with speed carrying that wealth with them (that was to be distributed in charity). Then Dhritarashtra, that first of men, hearing from them everything that had happened in the woods, wept for his brother. He brooded over his affliction continually, little relishing the comfort of beds and seats and dishes."

Pandu had declared that he would never go back to Hastinapura till his death. So there was no chance for his return, let alone his being the king again. So the claim of Dhritrashtra's being a part-time king is refuted here.

Pandu also returned his crown to Dhritarashtra. That crown was the tag of the King and hence Dhritarashtra became the permanent, not temporary, King of Hastinapura.

It's a well-known fact that the son of the King has the right to be the next King. Duryodhana was the biological eldest son of the King, and hence, the legal heir to the throne of Hastinapura.

Dhritarashtra was a permanent King and Duryodhana was the legal heir to the thrond being the son of the incumbent King.

Infact hastinapur throne was not property of dhritrashtra either so even if dhrirashtra want to hand over he should follow rules and it was property of kurus and its duryodhan who was TYPE-1 legal heir as per rules hence he was real king

You said -

"Pandu had declared that he would never go back to Hastinapura till his death. So there was no chance for his return, let alone his being the king again. So the claim of Dhritrashtra's being a part-time king is refuted here.

Pandu also returned his crown to Dhritarashtra. That crown was the tag of the King and hence Dhritarashtra became the permanent, not temporary, King of Hastinapura."

---------------------------------------------------

Now, now...you are giving your own THEORIES. Just like Mahanalayak was doing with the offer. 😉 Not accepted.

Just like as per KMG and BORI, Krishna offered Draupadi to Karna. No theories/interpretations accepted there.

Similarly, as per KMG and BORI, Dhritarashtra himself admitted that he was never the King. No question of temporary or permanent. He was never the coronated King. And Dury is not the son of King. No interpretations accepted here as well. 😉

Edited by pd_am - 7 years ago

Quote

1123225

Hibernated

Posted: 7 years ago

#137

Originally posted by: Priya_Vrisha
Hahaha
@Mahanalayak

Here is the verse

Shashte Twam Cha tatha kale Draupadi Upgamoshyati

Meaning -

Shashte - Sixth
Twam - you
Cha - and
Kale - period
Upagam - Intercourse ( Upgamoshyati - will intercoInte )

So, Meaning is - and (in) Sixth period Draupadi will ( have ) intercourse ( with) you

This is Sanskrit Dictionary for those who want to learn basic Sanskrit

http://spokensanskrit.org

Oh, boy. 😆You make this so easy, it is almost like taking candy from a kid.

Ok Priya Vrisha

Want to see something interesting?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs12003.htm

evam uktas tu rmea nyyenopajagma sa

duryodhanam upgamya ktstro 'smti cbravt

If Upagamya is intercourse, does that mean Karna and Suyodhana had intercourse?😆

If they were gay, more power to them. God bless them for their courage. But does make you wonder why Krishna was offering Panchali to a gay man?

Edited by MahanalayakKarn - 7 years ago

Quote

pd_am

@pd_am

Beginner

Posted: 7 years ago

#138

Originally posted by: Mahanayak-Karna
Throne of hastinapur was property of kuru not any single person

Dhritrashtra was elder but blind so throne handed over to pandu. Ok no problem

Pandu ruled and again he handed over throne to dhritrashtra. Now dhritrashtra was king

Duryodhan was born as per type-1 heir and pandavas were born as per type-2 heirs here duryodhan had rights as per vyass fans logics

Again he was son of king not any brahmacharin like pando so again his rights confirmed

Irony is that even if dhrirashtra want to hand over kingdom to anyone still he cant do because its kuru property afterall and as per rules duryodhan was first heir to throne

ao begger pandavas stole his kingdom

Really now? 😆

Pandu returned the crown to his elder brother, because he had to return the crown - an object - to someone. Yes, he promised never to accept wealth.

Does it automatically make Dhrit the King?

NO. That is again, your INTERPRETATION.

Nowhere in Mahabharata it is said, that Dhrit was officially coronoted as the King after Pandu left. This is only your assumption.

And later Dhrit confesses that former King Pandu's son Yudi is the rightful heir as per laws of ascesion. Dhrit admits that he himself never became the King. So his son Dury is not son of King and so cannot become King. 😈

So, conclusion -

Krishna offered Draupadi to Karna (as per KMG and BORI). No interpretations accepted.

Dhritarashtra is not the King, because he himself confesses it. And Dury is not son of King. And so has no right over empire (as per KMG and BORI). No interpretations accepted here as well.

You cannot conveniently swing between literal meaning of shlokas and interpretation as per your wish. 😳

Edited by pd_am - 7 years ago

Quote

pd_am

@pd_am

Beginner

Posted: 7 years ago

#139

Originally posted by: Mahanayak-Karna

If no interpretation are accepted then accept that krishna offered arjuna's wife to karna

Oh yes, I have already stated the offer as conclusion. Don't you see?

Now, you also accept that Duryodhan was not the rightful heir.

You see, you cannot switch between interpretation and citations conveniently.

Quote

1123225

Hibernated

Posted: 7 years ago

#140

Actually I'm very well educated 😆 Thank you for asking.

If your question is about the Sanskrit translation, your friend, Priya Vrish, is the one who claims Upagam means intercourse. It is the same root word. 😆

If the offer to Karna means intercourse, then the verse concerning the interaction between Karna and Suyodhana also means intercourse. Same word, same meaning 😆

Thanks to the Karna fan club, I found another layer to the Karna-Suyodhana friendship.

More power to them, I say 👍🏼

Edited by MahanalayakKarn - 7 years ago