{| Doubts and Discussions about Mahabharata - 2 |} - Page 35

Originally posted by: ThePirateKing

I have read in some books that the Magadha kings like Bimbisara and Ajatashatru etc were called the Brihadhrata line (I guess he was Jarasandha's father). Is that correct? If so that survived quite some centuries.

Thanks @Surya_krsnbhakt.

Originally posted by: ThePirateKing

Thanks @Surya_krsnbhakt.

Why are the brahmins in the epic referred to as twice-born?

Brahmins are the ones who have gained the knowledge of Brahma. A person becomes a brahmin by Karma. Karma of thoughts, speech and action. Whoever attains the brahma knowledge, is entitled to brahminhood, reborn spiritually after being born materially from his mother's womb. Therefore they are called dwija or twice-born.

Originally posted by: Surya_krsnbhakt

Well acording to Srimad Bhagavatam, the descendants of the Pandava line were Abhimanyu > Parikshit > Janamejaya and 3 brothers > Satanika > Sahasranika > Asvamedhaja > Asimakrishna > Nemicakra > Citraratha > Suciratha >Vrishtiman > Sushena > Sunitha > Nricakshu > Sukhinala > Pariplava > Sunaya > Medhavi > Nripanjaya > Durva> Timi > Brihadratha > Sudasa > Satanika > Durdamana > Mahinara > Dandapani > Nimi > Kshemaka.

So that makes 29 generations after Pandavas.

Thanks. Do you know w/ which ruler the Puru/Pandava capital changed from Hastinapur to Indraprastha?

I have a question regarding technicality of statement. I have seen that it is written that a woman having physical relationship with more than 4 is unchaste or whatever is stated.I want to ask having just physical relationship or being married with rituals were considered same? please answer it objectivey without bringing anyone name. what is manu samhita? when was it written? if marrying more than five was prohibited or considered sin as it was opposed by "shastra", why this famous debatable marriage was even accepted at first place? in case of rama it was the same society who raised questions, what happened in case of mb? sometimes I really wonder whether mb and ramayana are really epic of same culture?

Answer to the above - a woman having even thoughts of a certain man, or even touching or being touched by him (touched as in his fingers touching her, or her him) was said to be no longer pure for anyone except for/to the man in question.

In SB (as in Shrimad Bhagvatam, not ⭐️B), that's exactly the circumstance of Duryodhan's daughter Laxmanaa. Jambavati's son Samba gate crashed her swayamvara, took her by the hand & fled, despite the fact that she disdained him and didn't want him for a hubby. Even though the Kauravas captured him and got her back, her swayamvara was ruined - she couldn't be given in marriage to any man except Samba. This put the Kauravas in a quandary, which they 'solved' by imprisoning Samba. When Balarama came and intimidated them into freeing & returning Samba, the Kauravas handed Laxmanaa over w/ him as well, so she had no choice but marry him.

So in this case, as per Manu's law, Duryodhan's daughter was 'unchaste' thru no fault of her own. She didn't want Samba, had no thoughts of him or anything like it, but b'cos he touched her, she was touched, and so she automatically got regarded as won by him.

P.S. I know you didn't want examples, and I deliberately avoided using the most famous ones, to avoid any controversy. However, this point couldn't be illustrated w/o one, so I picked one of the most innocuous (from the pov of most readers) that I could find. Since Duryodhan is an unsympathetic character, it sometimes extends to other members of his immediate family as well - be it his son who is mocked in South Indian versions as being duped by Ghatotkacha while trying to marry Balarama's daughter, or his daughter, whose molestation by Krishna's son is celebrated by Shrimad Bhagvatam.

k vrish but if laxmana was married will this question of purity would have arised? meaning still she would b called unpure? I meant to ask having relationship after marriage and without marriage do fall in same category?

btw my intention of asking is not that I support everything which happened at that time.its just because in many social sites I have "learnt" that the word used in VH for was technically right according to some "shastra". so I do want to know how for this statement is right

Originally posted by: srishtisingh

btw my intention of asking is not that I support everything which happened at that time.its just because in many social sites I have "learnt" that the word used in VH for was technically right according to some "shastra". so I do want to know how for this statement is right

I've read a lot of related comments. Such people never dare to mention the particular Shastra, one person posts something and then it gets viral without a single question being raised about the root. I've never come across the mention of any such shastra in Mahabharata. Had it been so, a condition resembling Ramayana would have occurred.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

>>I also disagree w/ Varaali that Duryodhan too repented when he was dying. Nowhere does he save that. When Krishna tells the Pandava army to abandon Duryodhan since he was now like a piece of dead wood, Duryodhan went on into a tirade about how Krishna had cheated him, and Krishna in turn refuted him. Duryodhan then made some claim about reading the vedas and doing great things and was showered by flowers from heaven, which left the Pandavas somewhat shaken & embarrassed. Later on, Duryodhan went on to encourage Ashwatthama, Kripa & Kritavarma, and when he got the news of the massacre of the Pandava army, he rejoiced, and told Ashwatthama that the latter had achieved what Bheeshma, Drona & even Karna couldn't, and that Duryodhan could die happy. None of that sounds remotely like repentance.<<