~| Whatever you want to argue about |~ - Page 30

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

@HearMeRoar - this is completely out of topic but since you like to make sense of things by removing divine things I wanted to ask have you read Amish's books? What do you think of his perspective or the way he justified it ? 😊

I started to read Shiva trilogy many years ago but didn't finish. 😆 Not because it was bad. Simply for sidetracked. From the little I read, a lot of it seems plausible, but I also feel he injected his politics into it.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I already gave the reasons for 1 and 2.

Kids were not born when Pandu left, so he wouldn't know what would happen, and Bheeshm did find a loophole and made Dhritrashtra sit on the throne wear the crown and have all the practical powers of a king -this includes deciding the next Yuvraj too. These rights are given to no-one but a king. Excluding a formal Rajyabhishek there was nothing that separated Dhritrashtra from a king. He had his loophole. But working with loopholes you wouldn't get 100% results

As I already said post the birth of kids, Pandu would have been extra cautious to ensure kids are saved. Bheeshm couldn't have just sent his men to Brahmin lands and Van, at max he could send some small time spies, killers and Pandu could ensure safety from those

I didn't say that Bheeshm rejected Kunti, I said after Pandu's death Bheeshm had no option but to accept them so he officially welcomed them whole heartedly

The10-12 year old was a part of the plan not the mastermind. The fact that Yuyutsu could spoil them is in a fact a proof that all the royal kids were trained for secretary, spying right from the beginning. The IAS officers of today is not like the princes of those days

Bheeshm not saying anything in Dwit Sabha was never something I added in my list of reasons to believe that he secretly wanted Kaurav king, I just said why sages didn't react. In fact I opined that Bheeshm became anti Duryodhan post this event while Chhiillli thinks otherwise but her point isn't wrong, he could have at least stopped Karna, after all even if she was, she was the slave of his family, Karna had no rights

And no Bheeshm couldn't have guessed what Yudhishtir would do, but when it was done he felt it on his ego and selected someone who would find maximum objections. He stopped Bheem to show himself as someone great and things that followed actually took things worse from bad

We know about the entire war by Sanjay Dhritrashtra conversation, but the way the conversation happened isn't possible at all. I am saying that the convo happened at the end of the war/the convo was a poetic liberty

And Karna's point isn't the only one in my original post there are other reasons for his antifavouritism to.

He couldn't kill because his opponents were equal masterminds be it Pandu or Vidur

What did Bhishma have against Pandu? He installed Dhruti as regent King before birth of Pandavas, so that's not a loophole to stop Pandu's sons from getting throne, if Dhruti had powers to decide next heir then why was Yudi a competition? So Dury had better base to be the King

There are too many characters for me to believe anyone was manipulating everyone be it Bhishma, Krishna or Vyasa and we don't even have text to support anything, so I will stop here

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

What do you think of kingdom being divided theory?? Upandavas leaving their progeny? Which version is bhasa bharata ?? Is it Nepali one??

Kingdom's division, IMO, was done for 2 reasons. Mind you, this is strictly conjecture. 1. As Vyasa says, the purpose was to destroy the elite kshatriya. You can't really do that by keeping the entire subcontinent under one mega king. 2. Try to avoid another conflict over the big chair. Split the land into pieces which were not really in any shape to battle each other.

Bhasa was a pre Kalidasa playwright who probably lived in 800 to 900 AD. His work would have about as much validity as Chanakya who said Yadavas tried to kill Vyasa. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I started to read Shiva trilogy many years ago but didn't finish. 😆 Not because it was bad. Simply for sidetracked. From the little I read, a lot of it seems plausible, but I also feel he injected his politics into it.

I think the disability theory he gave ie all those four hands gods and goddesses are deformed is plausible but how can almost every second god be disabled. I so want something like this on Vishnu though. His stories seem so much more interesting.

Btw are you planning to write a book with your MB theories? 😆

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Kingdom's division, IMO, was done for 2 reasons. Mind you, this is strictly conjecture. 1. As Vyasa says, the purpose was to destroy the elite kshatriya. You can't really do that by keeping the entire subcontinent under one mega king. 2. Try to avoid another conflict over the big chair. Split the land into pieces which were not really in any shape to battle each other.

Bhasa was a pre Kalidasa playwright who probably lived in 800 to 900 AD. His work would have about as much validity as Chanakya who said Yadavas tried to kill Vyasa. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why so? @Bold .

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I think the disability theory he gave ie all those four hands gods and goddesses are deformed is plausible but how can almost every second god be disabled. I so want something like this on Vishnu though. His stories seem so much more interesting.

Btw are you planning to write a book with your MB theories? 😆

I didn't mean the disabilities. I meant the general plot. IMO, the multihand thing was just a way of saying they could do many things. For ex, if you call someone a Ravan today, it might simply be because he was shrewd enough for 10 heads.

I'm not doing a full-on MBh retelling. 😆 Theories are all right, but to write a readable story, you need to know something about the land and its times. What they wore, what they ate, how it tasted, what the air smelled like, how long it took to do hair, what kind of diseases, what kind of poisons, how did a sword wound feel... things which lend flavor to the plot. It's too much work to do that kind of extensive research.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

What did Bhishma have against Pandu? He installed Dhruti as regent King before birth of Pandavas, so that's not a loophole to stop Pandu's sons from getting throne, if Dhruti had powers to decide next heir then why was Yudi a competition? So Dury had better base to be the King

There are too many characters for me to believe anyone was manipulating everyone be it Bhishma, Krishna or Vyasa and we don't even have text to support anything, so I will stop here

He didn't have anything against Pandu but against his decision to send his wives from Niyog without his permission. Bheeshm was a proper patriarch couldn't let anything happen without his will. Dhritrashtra wasn't just the king regent, regents don't get the crown, or even power to sit on the throne (like Bharatji)

Dury was definitely at benefit to get the crown, he was raised exactly by that mind set. Yudi became a competition because he came with Sages support, Divine birth theory. Suddenly he became more deserving to a good population in the kingdom.

Even later it is Dhritrashtra who announces the Yuvraj, as per HV, Krishnaji sends Akroor to say that they expect Pandavas get what they deserve. Huge external pressure caused Dhritrashtra to name Yudi

See the mere fact that despite multiple attempts, Pandavas don't even complain, reach out to Bheeshm for their support is a clear proof that Bheeshm wasn't trusted by Vidur or Kunti+Pandavas. There needs to be some reason for it

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Why so? @Bold .

Chanakya didn't give reason.

Whosoever is of reverse character, whoever has not his organs of sense under his control, will soon perish, though possessed of the whole earth bounded by the four quarters.

For example: Bhoja, known also by the name, Dándakya, making a lascivious attempt on a Bráhman maiden, perished along with his kingdom and relations;

So also Karála, the Vaideha. Likewise Janamejaya under the influence of anger against Bráhmans, as well as Tálajangha against the family of Bhrigus.

Aila in his attempt under the influence of greed to make exactions from Bráhmans, as well as Ajabindu, the Sauvíra (in a similar attempt);

Rávana unwilling under the influence of vanity to restore a stranger's wife, as well as Duryodhana to part with a portion of his kingdom; Dambhodbhava as well as Arjuna of Haihaya dynasty being so haughty as to despise all people;

Vátápi in his attempt under the influence of overjoy to attack Agastya, as well as the corporation of the Vrishnis in their attempt against Dvaipáyana.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00litlinks/kautilya/book01.htm

My feeling is that this in some way references Samba and his misdeeds with the rishis. We believe it was Durvasa, but Chanakya was closer to the actual event and likely knew better.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Kingdom's division, IMO, was done for 2 reasons. Mind you, this is strictly conjecture. 1. As Vyasa says, the purpose was to destroy the elite kshatriya. You can't really do that by keeping the entire subcontinent under one mega king. 2. Try to avoid another conflict over the big chair. Split the land into pieces which were not really in any shape to battle each other.

Bhasa was a pre Kalidasa playwright who probably lived in 800 to 900 AD. His work would have about as much validity as Chanakya who said Yadavas tried to kill Vyasa. Nothing more, nothing less.

Kalidas is from 5th century AD, Bhasa predates him, he should have been alive 400AD

But again why Parikshit and not Uppandavas progeny is a confusion

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I think the disability theory he gave ie all those four hands gods and goddesses are deformed is plausible but how can almost every second god be disabled. I so want something like this on Vishnu though. His stories seem so much more interesting.

Btw are you planning to write a book with your MB theories? 😆

That disformity theory seems way too funny to me. I don't think that had any base. Found the book way too superficial