~| Whatever you want to argue about |~ - Page 31

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

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.

Is Chanakya mentioning about Mahabharata from any authentic source? It would mean even in those times Mahabharata shaped the people's lives

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

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

Parikshit only got Hastinapuri. I don't understand what exactly is the confusion. There was no empire when Yudhishtira and Panchali left. The rest of the land went to others.

The prominence of Parikshit in text is because story was narrated to Janmejaya.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

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.

MBh retelling is difficult and yeah I agree it ain't exactly a plausible idea. Moreover too many people have done and I also feel that an author can't help but be biased in their retellings xD like if i try to do a retelling I really won't help but give Arjun prime importance. XD

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Is Chanakya mentioning about Mahabharata from any authentic source? It would mean even in those times Mahabharata shaped the people's lives

Chanakya was from 3rd century BC, likely before there was written MBh,

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Parikshit only got Hastinapuri. I don't understand what exactly is the confusion. There was no empire when Yudhishtira and Panchali left. The rest of the land went to others.

The prominence of Parikshit in text is because story was narrated to Janmejaya.

Yudhishthir ascended to the imperial throne right? So his successor should also be the emperor right? Or did Yudhishthir lose alot of his kingdom?

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Is Chanakya mentioning about Mahabharata from any authentic source? It would mean even in those times Mahabharata shaped the people's lives

Chanakya probably was alive when MB was actually being written down but I doubt whether Chanakya/Kautilya was one person. Many historians also say this

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Yudhishthir ascended to the imperial throne right? So his successor should also be the emperor right? Or did Yudhishthir lose alot of his kingdom?

They split up the land between different rulers before abdicating. Hastinapuri went to Parikshit. But as what CHili says, Ashwamedha and Rajasuya didn't really lead to empires. So Hastinapuri was only one kingdom, not the seat of the empire.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

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

I haven't read the books but I read like only parts. I also found it strange that everyone is deformed! 😆

However I love his Ramayan retelling. Somehow his version appeals to me more than original version though I know nothing about Ramayan but maybe he would have some base why he retold it that way.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Parikshit only got Hastinapuri. I don't understand what exactly is the confusion. There was no empire when Yudhishtira and Panchali left. The rest of the land went to others.

The prominence of Parikshit in text is because story was narrated to Janmejaya.

I think confusion arises because of the story geys presented like for example for a very long time i was under impression that upandavas died without leaving any progeny and prakishit ended up inheriting everything. Only recently i have came to know that is not true.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Parikshit only got Hastinapuri. I don't understand what exactly is the confusion. There was no empire when Yudhishtira and Panchali left. The rest of the land went to others.

The prominence of Parikshit in text is because story was narrated to Janmejaya.

But Hastinapur was their original kingdom right. Shouldn't it go to Prativindhya's son while others including Parikshit get smaller/other areas

Like Luv Kush had got Koshal and Pushkar and Taksh other areas