{| Doubts and Discussions about Mahabharata |} - Page 67

Why after burning of Lakshagruh...Pandava not back to Hastinapur ?

They could go back & fight to Kaurava & Bhishma knew that Lakshagruh burning was because of Kauravas or not ?

What was need to go to exile ?

I dont think Bhisma knew bt vidur knew n he told to Yudi in indirect way...

Originally posted by: Proud-India

Why after burning of Lakshagruh...Pandava not back to Hastinapur ?

They could go back & fight to Kaurava & Bhishma knew that Lakshagruh burning was because of Kauravas or not ?

What was need to go to exile ?

Actually if you look at it, Bheeshma was the first to break the rules and that too on the very first day.

I have a doubt. Can this be possible that Krishna purposefully allowed Abhimanyu death so that to enrage Arjuna? He even got a reason to do the same things to other through that. Reason of my doubt being that Only Arjuna and Krishna knew how to get through chakravyuh and Krishna... despite knowing what would happen in their absence took Arjuna away from Northern side. They weren't even fighting someone too powerful. Krishna saved Arjuna life at least 3 times... He could have saved Abhimanyu too.. And also Jayadrath had the boon to block Pandav excluding Arjuna only.. So what was others like Satyaki, Shikhandi, Drishtyadumya doing? We don't know how much powerful Jayadrath was.. But Satyaki was very powerful too... So if anyone could help me?

Originally posted by: ketan_jha

I have a doubt. Can this be possible that Krishna purposefully allowed Abhimanyu death so that to enrage Arjuna? He even got a reason to do the same things to other through that. Reason of my doubt being that Only Arjuna and Krishna knew how to get through chakravyuh and Krishna... despite knowing what would happen in their absence took Arjuna away from Northern side. They weren't even fighting someone too powerful. Krishna saved Arjuna life at least 3 times... He could have saved Abhimanyu too.. And also Jayadrath had the boon to block Pandav excluding Arjuna only.. So what was others like Satyaki, Shikhandi, Drishtyadumya doing? We don't know how much powerful Jayadrath was.. But Satyaki was very powerful too... So if anyone could help me?

This is what I found on the subject:

Furthermore, Lord Krishna knew that Abhimanyu was so powerful a warrior, that he could alone defeat and kill all the Kauravas, which would not let the Pandava vows to be fulfilled of killing the Kauravas on their own, and Krishna did not want Mahabharata's hero to be anyone else other than Arjun (who was his devotee). Also, Krishna knew that with the knowledge of such treachery from Kauravas to kill his son, Arjun would be furious and would be killing all the Kauravas with less guilt in his conscience."

Hope this helps.. 😊

The above story doesn't answer Ketan's question (and is a folk tale, not there in the original). Jayadrath's boon only covered the 4 Pandavas, and that too, only for a day. But Satyaki, Dhrishtadyumna, Shikhandi, Virata, Drupada, all were more powerful than him. So how was it that they couldn't defeat him?

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

The above story doesn't answer Ketan's question (and is a folk tale, not there in the original). Jayadrath's boon only covered the 4 Pandavas, and that too, only for a day. But Satyaki, Dhrishtadyumna, Shikhandi, Virata, Drupada, all were more powerful than him. So how was it that they couldn't defeat him?

My reply is concerned with only one of the question asked by ketan:
"Can this be possible that Krishna purposefully allowed Abhimanyu death so that to enrage Arjuna?"
And that is the reason why I have included the question in my post:
"Why Abhimanyu was not taught either by Arjun or Krishna about the know-how to break the Chakravyuha? "
Yes, the boon only covered the 4 Pandavas that is why Arjun was led away that day..
Since I don't know anything about the second half of his question(Why they couldn't defeat him), so I have not said anything on that subject. It is something that has been bothering me too...😕 😡 😕

The answer that I have posted is something that I found after searching on the net for sometime, and is the only one that looked plausible to me. I am not guaranteeing it's originality. I really don't know what you meant by "folk tale, not there in the original"?? 😕

I personally think that Mahabharat is sort of a tale that is open to interpretations by people. After reading my answer, I thought that it could definitely be a valid reason while you thought it a folk-tale.. 😛
Both is possible.. 😊
Anyway, what is Original??? Ved Vyas's MB or B.R.C's MB?? I am sure there are people who after seeing B.R.C's MB thought that some parts were folk-tales and not original.. If Ved Vyas's MB is the original one, than I doubt that any of us has actually read it, so the question of original version does not arise.

PS: I am really sorry if my posts or answers have offended anyone.. I was just trying to help..
Vrish, after reading your other posts in the forum, I know that you know a lot on the subject of Mahabarat, so I am not contradicting you!! I have only just become interested in it, and am a lot less knowledgeable... 😳
It's just that I don't think that we can say with absolute certainty that anything is original or absolutely right...

Your post didn't offend me @ all - I was just pointing out that it was tangential to the original question, or a part of it at least.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Your post didn't offend me @ all - I was just pointing out that it was tangential to the original question, or a part of it at least.

I have another question. B4 the war, Rukmi came & offered to join the Pandavas, and Arjun dismissed him, and Duryodhan did as well, since Rukmi had offered his services to Arjun first.

But it didn't make sense. Granted, Rukmi was less than humble. But the Pandavas needed all the support they could get. Just b4 this, uncle Shalya had been tricked into joining the Kauravas, and so their calculations were thrown astray. So had they accepted Rukmi w/ his akshauni, they'd have had one more warrior equal to Satyaki & Arjun.

Similarly, Duryodhan dismissed Rukmi b'cos he approached the Pandavas first. But that's precisely what Shalya was planning to, and wanted to do. Moreover, Shalya had reasons to sabotage Duryodhan, unlike Rukmi, who had no such ties w/ the Pandavas. So why did Duryodhan find Shalya worth getting into his army, but not Rukmi?

I was reminded of this question seeing Rukmi in today's episode.

Yeah, Mahabharat is full of these confusing topics..!!! 😆
I had last read the whole of Mahabharat some 4-5 years ago... So, had forgotten a lot!! 😊
But, now to understand the serial better, I decided to brush up on my "Mahabharat knowledge 🤣" , and many topics leave me confused. It might be because I am looking at everything from a modern POV...😕
But there so many complexities in this epic: complex characters, complex storyline, complex psychology!!
It is a great epic no doubts about it, perhaps even the greatet evr written but sometimes it does become difficult to relate to.. 😭
Another topic that I found confusing lately is this:
"Draupadi is the only instance we come across in epic mythology of a sati becoming a kanya. It is stated that in an earlier birth as Nalayani (also named Indrasena), she was married to Maudgalya, an irascible sage afflicted with leprosy. She was so utterly devoted to her abusive husband that when a finger of his, dropped into their meal, she took it out and calmly ate the rice without revulsion. Pleased by this, Maudgalya offered her a boon, and she asked him to make love to her in five lovely forms. As she was insatiable, Maudgalya got fed up and became an ascetic. When she remonstrated and insisted that he continue their love-life, he cursed her to be reborn and have five husbands to satisfy her lust. Thereupon she practiced severe penance and pleased Lord Shiva with her prayers. He granted a boon to her. Nalayani said that she wanted a husband and to ensure that her request was heard, she repeated it five times in all. Shiva then said that in her next life she would have five husbands. She obtained the boon of regaining virginity after being with each husband. ]Thus, by asserting her womanhood and refusing to accept a life of blind subservience to her husband, Nalayani, the sati, was transformed into Yajnaseni, the kanya."
If anyone could shed some light on this topic, it would be great.. 😊
I know about Lord Shiva's boon, it's all the other things that are a bit confusing especially what is being said about a Sati and a Kanya...