Originally posted by: indraajeet
@ Ashwini_D
there are two references in Sabha Parvan in which Duryodhana thinks himself eldest ... elder to Yudhishthira ...
going by this ... Duryo naturally believes himself to be the rightful heir to throne ...
now, this is quite possible ...
since Pandavas were born in forest, the 'elder' one is indeterminable ...
... the absurd myth that Duryo stayed 4 years in his mother's womb and was born as flesh was perhaps the Pandava propaganda to settle the matter in favour of Yudhi ... and the Pandava birth-myth ... fathered by Gods was perhaps another ploy to make "instant birth" plausible ... also to obscure the question of the elder son ...
... now Duryo's being eldest is plausible from another point of view ...
... in the Deva-Asura conflict myths, the Asuras are the eldest ... so, if Pandavas are "gods" (anshas etc) that is a way of suggesting that Yudhi was younger ... that should be logically so ...
... then Yudhi's conquest of the throne is like the young Indra's getting the throne usurping the elder Vrtra (who is in fact an ex-Indra ... it is always the ex-Indra who becomes Vrtra as per Vedas) ... and that is why Yudhi is hailed as Dharma-Indra ... pl remember that in Brhdaranyaka Upanishad, Dharma is the fifth born after the 4 Varnas .. that is, Dharma too suggests 'youngest' ...
it is our wretched tendency to villainize Duryo that obscures these subtle matters from our eyes ... time to remember that Vyasa was not a hindi film/serial director portraying a flat and simplistic Good vs. Evil narrative ... time to bid good bye to our misconceptions about Duryodhana ... he was a great hero and king ... only he was not suitable to Krishna's Dharma-Rajya because he had tyrannous tendencies ... therefore he had to go ...
it is thus, that a later poet send Duryodhana to Heaven ... and Bhasa and Bharavi portray Duryodhana in very positive light ...
regards
Indrajit
The succession rule in both Chandra and Surya vansh wasn't based on Primogeniture/ first born, it was based on ability , also it mattered who the citizens found capable (?)
If we look into the history of Chandra vansh, there are kings who weren't first born but inherited the throne
Yayati wasn't the eldest one ,his youngest son Puru inherits the throne
Dushyant, Bharat, were not the eldest, Bharat's adopted son Bhumanyu too did not choose his eldest son as successor, similarly Kuru . Parikshit ,the son of Kuru was the youngest!
Shantanu was also not the eldest ,Devapi , the elder one was disinherited because he had leprosy and Dhrit was not the first choice because of him being blind if Devapi and his children could be disinherited then the same rule and logic should apply to Dhrit and his sons , why an exception in case of the latter?
If Dury's logic that since he was the eldest son of the king, the kingdom is his, then all the eldest (disinherited) sons could claim their rightful share in their ancestral kingdom and if the list started with Yati ,the eldest son of Nahusha , Dury himself wouldn't even get that much of land that rests on the tip of needle!
Dury isn't suitable for Krishna's dharma rajya :
Because he was a supporter of Charvaka philosophy?
As far as I understand, charvaka doesn't believe in authority of vedas, rebirth/reincarnation . The only goal of human beings is to enjoy worldly pleasures and avoid any pain and Dury perfectly fits into this system , which he even agrees saying that he knew what Dharma is but its not his habit to follow on its path . What is it that he does, that one should say he was a good king? There is a description where citizens tell that Dury was a good king but if Mbh is a political ploy of both parties , then Dury too used this to his advantage , the citizens could be his chosen ones!
If a society at large holds this view of materialism enjoying worldly pleasures and follows it to extremities, who will work ? Who will create resources, before somebody enjoys it?
Were the pandavas in such an advantageous position to use their God-father myth? Even as a crown prince Yudi and co couldn't do much, they had to run for their life from Lakshagriha and wait for an opportunity to come back and claim their share of kingdom.
If Dury had tyrannous tendencies, that itself disqualifies him from being an able king, was he a king who could be trusted and would not settle personal scores or what we call take political revenge against his opponents , that too when the latter were helpless ( In dyut sabha and ghosha yatra) I think its not just tyranny , its sadism also on part of Duryodhan which even K M Munshi comments upon ; the baring of his thighs and patting them to Draupadi , speaks a lot ..
Now on poet Bhasa
Bhasa was a great playwright and has given twists and turns to the themes based on Mahabharata and can we use his plays to analyze the character of Duryodhan? Or say what he showed in his play was historical?
Karna bhara is full of loopholes and defies logic
Similarly Kalidasa also has twisted references and characters , he invents a curse on Shakuntala through Durvasa which the rishi might have never given ...
Compare the situation today, theres a serial Jodha Akbar on TV , given this can we look upto this serial to analyze character of Akbar or even know about his historical conquests and, or, his life ?
Edited by Maverick_me - 10 years ago
Chat Clubs
Ye Hai Mohabbatein
