Posted:
Originally posted by: ...Diala...
I too believe that it is not real.. because according to that story Sudaman is the eldest son of Karna.. but Vyasa says Vrishasena is his eldest son.. so somehow I dont think Sudaman's case is true.. if it was his brother atleast it is a little acceptable..
Karna should not be more that 4-5 years elder than Pandavas else Kunti would have been very old when she married Pandu.. I know there is some article which says they had 16 years difference but there are many flaws in that article to believe..
Is it necessarily established that Kunti was married when 16? We're just going by what the conventions seemed to be, but that was by no means uniform. If we assume that Kunti begat Karna when she was, say 14, she could still have married Pandu much later, like when she was 20 or so. But b/w their marriage and the birth of their sons, a lot of years would have passed. After all, after his marriage, Pandu went on a few military expeditions, and only after returning did he go out and then came the incident w/ Kindama, his abdication and then the birth of the Pandavas.
So it's perfectly possible that the difference in age b/w Karna & the Pandavas could have been anything. Also, it would seem that the lower castes married younger, so Karna too may have married when he was in his late teens. So that his son Sudarman, if eldest, would have been about Pradhyumna's age, and therefore old enough to attend that swayamvara.
One thing strange - if one looks at the guest list in the swayamvara - a lot of princes who were thought to be kids during the war, like Virata's sons Uttar or Shankha - were also there @ that swayamvara. If that were the case, they'd have been fully grown by the time of the war.
But back to Karna - he'd have had his sons really early, unlike the Pandavas, who had them really late.
Avatar and Signatures Shop
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
CID
Sports
Bade Achhe Lagte Hain
Hindi TV Shows
