Posted:
dont beat me up 4 saying all these 😆 bt what fascinates me most is that there is a strong possibility that d actual facts of mahabharat cd hv been erased from real history n fabricated storys cd hv been made to record down so that d future generations can not question the legality of yudhisthir inheriting d throne.
n b4 any of u jump on me i pray u question urselves..y wd famous ppl like karna bheeshma vidhur remain silent if draupadi was really disrobed?y do d versions vary at places or lack in consistency when talking abt d VH?sum places say d dress slipped sum say pulled sum says disrobed if krishna was realy a real char nt a figment of imagination then y in d 1st place wd he nt cum at that very instant when dushshasan even gt hold of draupadi?if krishna provided cloths to draupadi really so d ppl saw miracle infront their eyes..wdnt they hv understood its divine doing?hw cd even then drona bheesma vidhur nt speak out or reanounce thr services to d royal court?
Hmm. Well Draupadi's disrobing probably happened. Maybe, Dharma covering her up, is a poetic expression, but the Vastraharan is one incident that is mentioned in almost every translation of the epic or at least that's what I know. U can believe, whatever u want, but I personally believe that Lord Krishna did save her.
As for y Karna remained silent, then let me tell u, according to KMG, Karna was the main speaker in the Vastrahaan. In fact, he was the one, who instigated the Vastraharan. However, Star Plus has cleverly shifted the blame to Duryodhan. So, there is no reason for Karna to be "silent".
Vidur did speak up, but I too find it weird that Bhishma did not try to help Draupadi. Strange were the laws of duty then, I guess. Same with Drone. So, yes, their silence was very very wrong at that time. But the person, that I find to be the most guilty here is Dhritarashtra.
Being the king, he could have easily stopped the Vastraharan, but he didn't.
As for the divinity part, I think, in those days Gods were easily accessible. Through Tapasya, people could meet Gods, the Pandavas and Karna were sons of Gods...
Is it possible to achieve these now?
So, I guess, miracles were common then, n hence people did not get surprised by the divinity.
who gv yhisthir right to bet on his bros n d common wife as if they were his property to gamble away?
Well that's something Draupadi questioned too. N yes Yudisthir did not have the right to stake Draupadi at least...coz, he had already become a slave then.
if 4 d sake of winning d war a supposedly truthful yudhisthir cd lie that ashathama is dead then cdnt he hv lied at other times too?a lie told willingly n knowing d facts is more sinful than a lie told at d blurt of d moment isnt it?so if a man to serve his purpose disarm a man by his well planned lie then cnt we ask hw much wd u really bliv in yudhisthir in real life?
Hmm. I guess, Yudisthir did not realize all his life, that one day, he would have to lie, to get his Guru killed.
also d fact that pandavas were never pandus son..bt gods blessings..so hw can their right to d throne arise?even technically pandu ws given d throne as dhriti was blind bt d moment dhriti had son sdnt d legacy of d throne b returned to his blood line?sdnt duri b d legal n only automatic successor to d throne?
Actually, neither of Pandu and Dhritarashtra were rightful heir to the throne. Since, both were born through niyog. However, there were 2 rules followed in those days:
Firstly, any child born through niyog was considered to be the son of the king, n hence an heir to the throne.
Secondly, the eldest got the throne.
In both cases, Yudisthir was eligible.
And if Yudisthir's right was ruled out, just bcoz, he was not "Kuru blood", then the same goes for Dhritarashtra as well. So, if Yudisthir was not eligible, then neither was Dhritarashtra. And if Dhritarashtra is not eligible, then his son Duryodhan has no right either, even if he was the "biological" son.
And hence, Yudisthir was more eligible than Duryodhan.
I hope, I have been able to explain it.
evn if my pt is over ruled here then duri dnt gt d throne bt neither sd hv yudi as karna was d eldest son..what if kunti didnt remain a silent mute bt revealed all that karna ws d eldest n say karna inherited d throne then what?
Actually, Karna was the heir to the throne. Lord Krishna had himself offered the throne to Karna, which he refused. However, the Pandavas did not know about Karna's true lineage. So, they thought Yudisthir was the rightful heir n hence fought for it.
what if karna handed over d kingship to duri of his own will wd yudi still cd hv gt d throne?
This is difficult to say.
isnt their a possibility that arjun being married to subhodra gave an advantage to d pandavas as krishna bcums relative to arjun n 2 protect his sister's interest he being clever n hving foresightednes made better efficient war strategies ?plz cast aside d divine angle n think it as a battle of strategies n then u might b able to get what i mean to say..if kauravas were wiped out..pandavas won..cdnt they hv told historians to rewrite stories glorifying thr tales n struggles?we know when new ministers come they write down their own glorifying achievements so cdnt yudhisthir on bcuming d king ordered that d real records of kauravas b destroyed n manipulate a new story justifying their own actions alone..that they were d righteous one n d kauravas wrong doers?
Actually Ved Vyas was the biological grandfather of the Kauravas. Bcoz, Dhritarashtra and Pandu were sons of Ved Vyas. Why would Ved Vyas want to malign his own grandson Duryodhan and glorify the Pandavas, who were not even related to him by blood?
There are chances that the epic got modified in the last 5000 years...however, it's too far-fetching to say the Pandavas asked everyone to malign the story.
ya d question may arise then y wd they glorify bheesma karna etc if they were rewriting fabricated facts..bt may b bcoz they had to show that they won against epic soldiers of d stature of karna bheesma drona so that they cd say look we defeated d gr8 warriors so they sang few praises for them too?also d fact that not one writer wrote down mahabharat bt there were many proves that they were building a myth nt recording down facts..
Hmm. Actually that's too much. Coz, the Panadavs did not kill Karna or Bhishm fairly. So, y would the Pandavas, make up a story, where they are killing these warriors unfairly? That would actually demean the Pandavs. If they had really wanted to change the story, then they would have shown themselves as killing Karna, Bhishm and Drone in a fair manner. That would have glorified them in the true sense.
mahabharat fascinates me bcoz like a coin u can see 4m either side of d coin as head or tail..hw u c it is upto u to decide..whether u continue to bliv it like our elders bliv blindly or whether u question d conflicts n scrutinize d details n delve into d logic is upto d individual..all i bliv is a war against adharma cannot make u follow adharma too..then hw do u differentiate ?if kauravas were adharmis n they used tricks to win means krishna n pandavas wd follow d same?an eye 4 an eye policy?that itself is adharma..no evil can b won by equal plotting n cunningnes..i am nt convinced..i see thru mahabharat greedy weak ppl who tries to justify thr actions..tell me some thing if u dont bliv in god n dont pray bt u never sinned or wronged can god punish u?
Well, u r right. We should question the incidents rather than believing something blindly. But before we question, we should first read the text well, and then ask questions. Most people on the side of the Kauravas had done something or the other.
And the Pandavs too got punished. They might have won the war, but they lost all their children. They lost their Guru. They lost Bhishm. They lived with that loss for 36 years. And that's a huge pain.
However, n what wd b ur crime?that u didnt bow down to god?bt arents gods above fury jealousy love lust etc?who is a god?one who dont show any human like qualitys of weakness...bt krishna showed partiality he gave gyan to all y didnt he just walk to kunti n give her d gyan to speak d truth b4 karnas death?y didnt he go n tell kunti to confess yudi ws d=nt d heir to d throne bt karna is n sd b if kauravas r 2 b denied then making karna king might hv solved d issue?
Actually, Lord Krishna in the epic, did not give as much gyan as he does in the serial. And Karna himself did not want the Pandavas to know of his true lineage.
duri loved karna..may b he wdnt hv resisted karna as much as he wd hv resisted yudi?so many innocent lives of common men cd hv been saved then..isnt it?
How much Duryodhan loved Karna is doubtful. Duryodhan wanted the throne badly. He plotted to burn his cousins along with their mother, for the throne. He plotted the dice game for the throne.
I don't think that he would have easily given up the throne to Karna, despite all friendship. Karna would have given up the throne to Duryodhan, but the reverse may not be true.
also tell me y draupadi rejected karna ?can krishna if he was god advice draupadi to reject karna on basis of caste?can god indulge in casteism?all r equal for him isnt it?n arjun too kept talking of cast..bt duri is d only person who showed he didnt bliv in casteism by making karna a king of a small place..y?sum may say bcoz enemys enemy is frnd..bt even then duri showed he dnt bliv in caste system bt abilitys..much that i hate n condemn duri 4 VH bt still i respect him 4 showing that he honoured quality of a person above caste..
Actually, in those days Caste System was a huge thing. I know, being a person of the 21st Century, it is difficult to digest this, but in those days, people worshipped Caste System.
Draupadi rejected Karna on her own. Lord Krishna never told her anything.
As to y she rejected Karna, it's simply bcoz, in those days Pratiloma marriages were almost a taboo. Pratiloma marriage, where a woman of higher caste married a man of a lower caste was condemned.
Otherwise, think, y would a royal princess marry a poor Brahmin, but not a King?
Draupadi, in the epic, did not know about Arjun's true identity, when he came to her Swamvar. Whatever has been shown in the serial is false.
So, y would a royal princess choose a poor Brahmin rather than a King?
Bcoz, of Caste System. Such was the rigidity of the Caste System then.
People would rather be poor, than marry someone of lower caste.
It was not Draupadi's fault, but the set up of the hypocritical society.
As for Duryodhan, he befriended Karna, bcoz he finally found someone to counter Arjun.
Maybe, he was not much into Casteism, but he did wat he did, for his own agenda and not bcoz he loved Karna.
Later on, he did accept Karna as a true friend, but at the beginning, he did it for his own agenda.
I am sorry, if I offended u. But I just really wanted to clear certain misconceptions. 😊
Members Lounge
