{| Doubts and Discussions about Mahabharata |} - Page 40

Originally posted by: Xarina

I wonder about lineage. Ambika and Ambilika may have given birth to sons but were they the rightful heirs of Hastinapur? How in the absence of a monarch was Hastinapur not invaded by other kings during that time? Beeshma may have been protector and warrior but he was not king.

Finally, did Gandari give birth to a tumour? As I previously stated please excuse my ignorance. They are just random questions that enter my head. If it is any consolation I query all religions too.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I have another question about the succession laws. If a King died, who was next in line to the throne - his son, or brother? Did it follow the British model, where it would be (barring daughters) the king's eldest son, then all others, then the king's brother and so on?

Like in this case, would it have been Dhritarashtra, Duryodhan..., Pandu, Yudhisthir, Bhima, Arjun, Nakul, Sahadev (had Dhritarashtra not been born blind?)

Originally posted by: varaali

Succession laws changed over a period of time. Manu Dharmashastra and Kautilya's Arthashastra do talk extensively on succession- but I don't recollect the whole set of laws right now.

We can only go by what was practiced and even then, the actual practice varied from the theory.

AFAIK, when a king died, his eldest son (if his upanayanam had been performed and had completed some years of study, at least) would inherit the throne.

In case the son was still a minor, the king's brother may ascend the throne but- and this is where it differs from the British model- once the original king's son attains maturity, he would have be instated as the Crown Prince. The crown reverts back to the descendants of the original king. The brother's son does not come anywhere in the picture.

But the rules are unclear when a king abdicates the throne. What happens to his sons? It depended whether they were born before or after the abdication- but I am not sure. I have to look up.

As I said, whilst this may have been the rule, in actual practice it was more often than not flouted.

Originally posted by: Proud-India

Any unheard story from MB but unique & Never shown on screen...Some interesting facts then please share 😊

This is an untold story' from Mahabharat, published in a Sanskrit Magazine, many years ago. It goes like this:

Duryodhan is lying in the battle field, awaiting death, badly bruised by the wounds inflicted by Bhima. He kept his three fingers in a raised position and is unable to speak. All the efforts made by his men to understand the meaning proved to be futile.

Seeing his plight Krishna approached him and said "I know what issues occupied your mind. I will address them".

He clarified that the issues are

a) not building a fort around his capital city,

b) not persuading Vidur to participate in the battle

c) not making Aswathama as commander-in-chief after the death of Dronacharya.

Krishna explained further that (a) Assuming that you built a fort, I would have asked Nakul to mount the horse and destroy the fort, (b) If you succeeded in persuading Vidur to participate in the battle, I would have taken the Sudarshan Chakra myself to defeat him, and (c) If Aswathama is made the commander-in-chief, I would have made Yudhistir angry.

On hearing this Duryodhan closed all the fingers and within seconds he left his body.

Let me explain a little further. Many of us do not know that Nakul can drive his horse even in heavy rain without getting wet. He travels with such a speed between a drop and another drop, without getting wet. Only Nakul can do this among Kaurav and Pandav warriors. It also seems that if Yudhistir gets angry, everything that falls within the range of his eye sight will be burnt.

Management Lesson: Properly estimate the plans of the enemy and prepare for a counter attack well in advance like Krishna.

link : http://toostep.com/insight/the-untold-story

Originally posted by: maha2us

The rule of succession to the throne is an interesting topic. A general rule or I will prefer to say a convention was the eldest son becomes the successor to the throne. I guess this is more so based on common sense. There is one reason the eldest son is to succeed a present king. The king is a person who has to command respect of all others including his brothers. Suppose the younger son becomes the king, how will his elder brother feel to be the courtier of the king? Can you answer whether the elder brother be comfortable? How will the elder brother feel if the younger brother orders him? It is quite possible the elder brother can expect the younger brother to respect him. The younger brother won't feel safe as a king when the capable elder brother is there active in the kingdom and decide some way to kill the elder brother. How Yayati managed to get Puru succeed the throne is its own story. Probably Puru could ward of the challenges by Yadu and others.

Of course if the eldest son is a very bad person or he has serious disability the younger brother definitely succeeds the throne.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Within the Chandravansh, how then did Balarama feel while Krishna was driving all the decisions, and whenever there was disagreement b/w them, Krishna still prevailed?

Maybe Yudhisthir should have been subordinate to Bhima 😆😈