~| Whatever you want to argue about |~ - Page 37

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

But pandu had accepted them , after pandu's insistence Kunti used that mantra.

2 be very true even drishrastra was not d real heir , he was vedvyas son not vichitravirya.

Bheesam was true heir 2 d throne but he vowed not 2 sat on throne.

Bheeshm vowed for Satyavati's sons/ lineage on the throne (didn't specify that Satyavati's son through Shantanu). VedVyas was still Satyavati's son. Aside Ambika and Ambalika were sent to him with his permission, so Dhritrashtra and Pandu were completely acceptable to him

Kunti's sons had no biological relation to Satyavati and the Niyog was done without even informing him.

Just think who would be dearer to Bheeshm

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Duryodhan wasn't openly bad in Front of sages at that time. He became so only after the war when he became a designated villian. His crimes were never in open earlier. The narration was written after the war when those crimes were actually highlighted.

There is a difference between Bheeshm not doing anything and Bheeshm not being told a thing. Bheeshm had arranged for the marriages of Dhritrashtra n Pandu, he was always powerful at least definitely till Dury became old enough to get into politics. After murderous attempt did he actually think that the gap could be parted? I don't think Bheeshm was so stupid. And he definitely can't be so aloof that he doesn't get to know that his grandson was poisoned. That was a big risk on royal family if it was done by someone external

Lax house thing was done far away not in the city premises so as to let go any suspicion and even then i am sure Bheeshm wasn't a part of this plan. And they did escape lax house too.

Bhishma arranging Pandu and Dhritarashtra's marriage is what old people do, Bhishma not saying anything to anyone and trying to put on a happy family show in front of the world is how these people who care about Kingdom and clan work

@Bold

Thats what I was saying when the Mahabharata clearly gives name of different people including Dhritarashtra as bad people, why would they Vyasa spare Bhishma if he was involved in it? He died too, Who stopped him from writing the truth about him? The epic is clear on who were the bad guys, they have named culprits every time

Draupadi blames Duryodhana for poisoning, Krishna blames people too so it was very well known, is there any ill will mentioned from Pandavas towards Bhishma to see Mahabharata from a perspective where Bhishma was a bigger villain than anyone else?

In fact without Bhishma, Nothing would have stopped Dhritarashtra from killing Pandavas, I am not saying that Bhishma loved Pandavas, I am saying Bhishma would have acted like he can't do any wrong

Vidur asked them not to say anything to anyone, why?

Because they were blaming son of the King for attempt to murder, how can they do it without evidence? This would have widened the gap between two families long ago and Bhishma was trying to stop this, I don't think he had any love for Duryodhana

If there was to be an attempt on 5 kids from the state, nothing could have saved Pandavas. One state vs 5 kids and there was none to protect them, None powerful.

I am agreeing to anything you say but Kingdom, Bhishma, King, Princess Military, Law, narrative vs Vidur, Kunti and Pandavas

I'd lose faith in power if Bhishma and state failed in killing 5 kids

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

AFAIK, Bhishma did support Pandu to become the emperor because if he did not, there was no way how he could have become one. (I am not going to put citations but putting links) - Nowhere is it mentioned what Bhishma supported, but if we are considering Satyavati and Bhishma to be the only two decision makers then obviously the decision of Pandu being king was his.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01110.htm

If we are considering VIDUR to be the one who fathered Yudhishthir, how come Bhishma was okay with this if he wanted Dhritarashtra's sons. Note here, we already know Pandu is impotent. So niyog would mean Kunti obtaining a son before Gandhari can obtain Dhritarashtra's progeny. Why would Bhishma let this happen? If we say Vidur was not the father, we also must remember D, V and P themselves are not from the Kuru bloodline so in this case either Bhishma should have gone for niyog himself or got all of these princes killed.

I am unable to understand why he would have a problem with niyog children. Again, is there any citation where he says he is against niyog children? Doesn't seem so. Niyog kids are considered to be the King's legal sons.

If he disliked Pandavas, why did he allow them to come back to the kingdom? Unless these Kuru elders were okay with it, Kunti could not have done anything considering the power dynamics.

Why would he support Duryodhan over Yudhishthir when Yudhishthir was cle

arly the one favoured by the sages, also the more obedient one.

He would definitely prefer Pandu over Dhritrashtra because Pandu was physically fit, yes he was impotent but no one would know this till marriage. After two marriages when his wives didn't conceive he got the message came up with the curse theory and left

Definitely he had no objection to Niyog and he would have been ok to Yudhishtir had Duryodhan not been in picture. Duryodhan was a biological great grandson of Satyavati unlike Pandavas.

Also the major point being Bheeshm was not informed about Kunti's Niyog(be it Vidur or anyone else) He had bad opinion with woman who have extra/pre marital relations add to it that he knew the birth secret of Karna..

In such situation who would he prefer among Dury n Yudhishtir? If Vidur was actually the biological dad all the worse, why would he even think of having the lineage of a Dasi on the throne

And where is it mentioned that Duryodhan was not obidient? He respected and obeyed Bheeshm completely

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

have cleared in my post

Bheeshm vowed for Satyavati's sons/ lineage on the throne (didn't specify that Satyavati's son through Shantanu). VedVyas was still Satyavati's son. Aside Ambika and Ambalika were sent to him with his permission, so Dhritrashtra and Pandu were completely acceptable to him

Kunti's sons had no biological relation to Satyavati and the Niyog was done without even informing him.

Just think who would be dearer to Bheeshm

First of all bheesam approached satyavati's father 4 his father Shantanu's marriage with satyavati , bheesam was eldest son of Shantanu & crowned prince also , when satyavati's father was worried for satyavati's children future which was 2 be born after marriage with Shantanu coz I don't think he knew about vedvyas neither I feel satyavati told Shantanu about him. He wanted his daughter's children to be d rulers on this bheesam took d vow of not sitting on throne , bheesam never vowed for satyavati's linage coz he 2 was not knowing about satyavati had a son before marriage. Bheesam vow was 4 satyavati's son born from Shantanu .

Sadly both son of satyavati died leaving no heir , I read satyavati even approached bheesam for niyog thing but he refused , later she told about vedvyas.

Bheesam had 2 ways with him.

He break his vow & claim d throne

Accept satyavati's suggestion of niyog through vedvyas.

He was forced to go by satyavati's suggestion

He very well knew about pandu's curse also I guess ghandhari was pregnant for 2 years by then Kunti also had son by yama after pandu's approval , pandu was very much d king , if bheesam would had been so against this Kunti's niyog procedure he would had talked about this 2 pandu which he never did , what was stopping him .

If bheesam promised satyavati's linage then he promised sons begotted by Shantanu .

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I had made a post in page 32-33. In a nutshell

Bheeshm was a misogynist and had very bad impression about woman who had premarital relations, since he knew about Karna's birth he definitely would have had bad impression on Kunti

Aside Bheeshm had promised Satyavati's lineage on throne. Pandu n Dhritrashtra were biologically so being sons of Vyas, Satyavati's son, Dury biological son of Dhritrashtra, Pandavas only legal lineage by a Niyog which wasn't done by family's permission

We are assuming this basis his acts. Why was he completely mum at Dwit Sabha, why didn't Pandavas reach out to him complaining the murder attempts, how did he being so observant missed out thr murder attempts on his grandsons why did he fight for Dury during their war(he had no oath to remain loyal to the throne unlike what TV series show

Now it's just perspective basis circumstantial evidence, we can't prove either true

Makes sense. However,

I understand the misogyny part. However Satyavati in that case too was someone who had pre marital relations, and she very clearly tells Bhishma about it.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01106.htm

In Kunti's case, there are two probabilities-

1. Divine perspective- Then Kunti was curious and she was blessed with a child by Surya. In this case Bhishma has no reason to be angry unless he is against curiosity as well.

2. Non divine perspective- I think Karna is also a case of sexual hospitality just like Vyasa was. Where the girl is supposed to satisfy the Brahmin or else it would result in a curse. We are almost sure Durvasa is the most potential candidate as Karna's father. IYKWIM.

Bhishma reacts sweetly when Satyavati tells him about her premarital relation and how Vyasa was born. Then how was Kunti at fault as per Bhishma's own logic.

About Bhishma knowing about Karna, when did he find out about this is not clear. Narada told him, but when? I am guessing it was not before the birth of the Pandavas or before Pandu's marriage because Bhishma is the one who mentions Kunti as a potential wife candidate for the princes. So he definitely would not have suggested Kunti had he know back then.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01111.htm

Bhishma said, 'This our celebrated race, resplendent with every virtue and accomplishment, hath all along sovereignty over all other monarchs on earth. Its glory maintained and itself perpetuated by many virtuous and illustrious monarchs of old, the illustrious Krishna (Dwaipayana) and Satyavati and myself have raised you (three) up, in order that it may not be extinct. It behoveth myself and thee also to take such steps that this our dynasty may expand again as the sea. It hath been heard by me that there are three maidens worthy of being allied to our race. One is the daughter of (Surasena of) the Yadava race; the other is the daughter of Suvala; and the third is the princess of Madra. O son, all these maidens are of course of blue blood. Possessed of beauty and pure blood, they are eminently fit for an alliance with our family.

Now, considering Bhishma knew and he was against Kunti's kids, he could have easily told YUDHISHTHIR about the Karna secret. Yudhishthir would give up throne in a jify (the reason why neither Kunti nor Krishna told Yudhi about the secret but told KARNA about it as they had no intention of giving Karna the throne). Karna being the king candidate would happily give it to Duryodhan because in no way was he interested in the imperial throne is clear. So it would be Duryodhan. Bhishma didn't do any of this, he had too many ways to make sure Duryodhan got the throne. Why didn't he do any of it is strange to me if he wanted it.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Bhishma arranging Pandu and Dhritarashtra's marriage is what old people do, Bhishma not saying anything to anyone and trying to put on a happy family show in front of the world is how these people who care about Kingdom and clan work

@Bold

Thats what I was saying when the Mahabharata clearly gives name of different people including Dhritarashtra as bad people, why would they Vyasa spare Bhishma if he was involved in it? He died too, Who stopped him from writing the truth about him? The epic is clear on who were the bad guys, they have named culprits every time

Draupadi blames Duryodhana for poisoning, Krishna blames people too so it was very well known, is there any ill will mentioned from Pandavas towards Bhishma to see Mahabharata from a perspective where Bhishma was a bigger villain than anyone else?

In fact without Bhishma, Nothing would have stopped Dhritarashtra from killing Pandavas, I am not saying that Bhishma loved Pandavas, I am saying Bhishma would have acted like he can't do any wrong

Vidur asked them not to say anything to anyone, why?

Because they were blaming son of the King for attempt to murder, how can they do it without evidence? This would have widened the gap between two families long ago and Bhishma was trying to stop this, I don't think he had any love for Duryodhana

If there was to be an attempt on 5 kids from the state, nothing could have saved Pandavas

@Bold I think I am unable to express myself. Yes Mahabharata lists the bad people but when? it was narrated post the war not when it was actually happening. Post war Duryodhan's evil deeds were open in public all the more because he was the direct enemy to Pandavas so his name could be added now. Duryodhan was never charged for those crimes before the war, not even in the Dyut Sabha. Adding Bheeshm's name was not possible, since he was never an open enemy and even Pandavas could not have openly accepted him being one since that would mean that Kauravas need to be better if all the elders wanted them.

Vidur asked not to say more because they blamed the prince, ok fine, but at least the murder attempt without naming a culprit could have been done! Even that wasn't done.

Arranging marriage, deciding whom to marry etc. is only done by a patriarch. Bheeshm held that power. On one hand you say that Bheeshm wasn't powerful enough to stop on other hand you say that Dhritrashtra stopped because of Bheeshm, both are contradictory statements. If he wasn't powerful then why Dhritrastra stopped for him, if he was then why don't tell him about the attacks.

Bheeshm wanted them dead but in such a way that it seems a natural death

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Makes sense. However,

I understand the misogyny part. However Satyavati in that case too was someone who had pre marital relations, and she very clearly tells Bhishma about it.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01106.htm

In Kunti's case, there are two probabilities-

1. Divine perspective- Then Kunti was curious and she was blessed with a child by Surya. In this case Bhishma has no reason to be angry unless he is against curiosity as well.

2. Non divine perspective- I think Karna is also a case of sexual hospitality just like Vyasa was. Where the girl is supposed to satisfy the Brahmin or else it would result in a curse. We are almost sure Durvasa is the most potential candidate as Karna's father. IYKWIM.

Bhishma reacts sweetly when Satyavati tells him about her premarital relation and how Vyasa was born. Then how was Kunti at fault as per Bhishma's own logic.

About Bhishma knowing about Karna, when did he find out about this is not clear. Narada told him, but when? I am guessing it was not before the birth of the Pandavas or before Pandu's marriage because Bhishma is the one who mentions Kunti as a potential wife candidate for the princes. So he definitely would not have suggested Kunti had he know back then.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01111.htm

Bhishma said, 'This our celebrated race, resplendent with every virtue and accomplishment, hath all along sovereignty over all other monarchs on earth. Its glory maintained and itself perpetuated by many virtuous and illustrious monarchs of old, the illustrious Krishna (Dwaipayana) and Satyavati and myself have raised you (three) up, in order that it may not be extinct. It behoveth myself and thee also to take such steps that this our dynasty may expand again as the sea. It hath been heard by me that there are three maidens worthy of being allied to our race. One is the daughter of (Surasena of) the Yadava race; the other is the daughter of Suvala; and the third is the princess of Madra. O son, all these maidens are of course of blue blood. Possessed of beauty and pure blood, they are eminently fit for an alliance with our family.

Now, considering Bhishma knew and he was against Kunti's kids, he could have easily told YUDHISHTHIR about the Karna secret. Yudhishthir would give up throne in a jify (the reason why neither Kunti nor Krishna told Yudhi about the secret but told KARNA about it as they had no intention of giving Karna the throne). Karna being the king candidate would happily give it to Duryodhan because in no way was he interested in the imperial throne is clear. So it would be Duryodhan. Bhishma didn't do any of this, he had too many ways to make sure Duryodhan got the throne. Why didn't he do any of it is strange to me if he wanted it.

Exactly if bheesham had bad impression 4 Kunti then surely 4 satyavati 2 coz I don't think before marriage satyavati had revealed about vedvyas to her father, Shantanu or bheesam.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

@Bold I think I am unable to express myself. Yes Mahabharata lists the bad people but when? it was narrated post the war not when it was actually happening. Post war Duryodhan's evil deeds were open in public all the more because he was the direct enemy to Pandavas so his name could be added now. Duryodhan was never charged for those crimes before the war, not even in the Dyut Sabha. Adding Bheeshm's name was not possible, since he was never an open enemy and even Pandavas could not have openly accepted him being one since that would mean that Kauravas need to be better if all the elders wanted them.

Vidur asked not to say more because they blamed the prince, ok fine, but at least the murder attempt without naming a culprit could have been done! Even that wasn't done.

Arranging marriage, deciding whom to marry etc. is only done by a patriarch. Bheeshm held that power. On one hand you say that Bheeshm wasn't powerful enough to stop on other hand you say that Dhritrashtra stopped because of Bheeshm, both are contradictory statements. If he wasn't powerful then why Dhritrastra stopped for him, if he was then why don't tell him about the attacks.

Bheeshm wanted them dead but in such a way that it seems a natural death

@bold

I don't understand why wouldn't they name Bhishma if he was as involved as you are saying, Dhritarashtra wasn't openly involved but his name is taken by Krishna.

I said there are two probabilities -

Bhishma not doing anything doesn't mean he was involved in it, It either means that he didn't have enough say or power in these matter or He didn't want to make it a common knowledge, do something which will widen the gap between two families

I stand by it, his name would have been mentioned if he was involved, we are reading between the lines, I don't think he was such a big villain as we are making him

If he was powerful, he would have killed Pandavas if he wanted to within a week and the same powerful guy shut up everyone to keep the facade of a strong kin and kingdom going

Pandu vs Dhritarashtra when Pandavas were younger wouldn't have been ideal for Bhishma or Hastinapur

It can't be that a powerful Bhishma with state machinery, King, Law behind him failed in killing 5 kids

Thats weak and stupid

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

@Bold I think I am unable to express myself. Yes Mahabharata lists the bad people but when? it was narrated post the war not when it was actually happening. Post war Duryodhan's evil deeds were open in public all the more because he was the direct enemy to Pandavas so his name could be added now. Duryodhan was never charged for those crimes before the war, not even in the Dyut Sabha. Adding Bheeshm's name was not possible, since he was never an open enemy and even Pandavas could not have openly accepted him being one since that would mean that Kauravas need to be better if all the elders wanted them.

Vidur asked not to say more because they blamed the prince, ok fine, but at least the murder attempt without naming a culprit could have been done! Even that wasn't done.

Arranging marriage, deciding whom to marry etc. is only done by a patriarch. Bheeshm held that power. On one hand you say that Bheeshm wasn't powerful enough to stop on other hand you say that Dhritrashtra stopped because of Bheeshm, both are contradictory statements. If he wasn't powerful then why Dhritrastra stopped for him, if he was then why don't tell him about the attacks.

Bheeshm wanted them dead but in such a way that it seems a natural death

But I don't understand why he would be unsuccessful. It is extremely easy to have removed Pandavas. When they were children why was Bhishma sitting. People who were part of lac house are mentioned clearly in the text, why Bhishma's name will be removed even post war if he was involved in this?

Also why are we assuming Bhishma knew every thing. Duryodhan was not dumb to have told Bhishma everything. He obviously wasn't doing anything dharmic. Why will anyone risk telling any elder about a plan to kill cousins. He may have not known at all..

Why would he not kill YBNS in the war? Arjun was strong to defeat him but i refuse to believe he could not even get hold of YNS? Leaving Bheem out too. Yudhishthir wasn't some great warrior. Also didnt Bhishma take a vow to not kill any Pandavas or is it a serial addition. I am not sure of this so not using this as a point but there's no reason for him not to capture Yudhi.

Moreover, why didn't he openly support duryodhan. What's rhe need to hide it and not clearly mention that he supports duryodhan - his vow said satya's lineage will be king so he is fulfilling his vow. Nobody could accuse him..

I am unable to understand what proves his love for duryodhan

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Makes sense. However,

I understand the misogyny part. However Satyavati in that case too was someone who had pre marital relations, and she very clearly tells Bhishma about it.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01106.htm

In Kunti's case, there are two probabilities-

1. Divine perspective- Then Kunti was curious and she was blessed with a child by Surya. In this case Bhishma has no reason to be angry unless he is against curiosity as well.

2. Non divine perspective- I think Karna is also a case of sexual hospitality just like Vyasa was. Where the girl is supposed to satisfy the Brahmin or else it would result in a curse. We are almost sure Durvasa is the most potential candidate as Karna's father. IYKWIM.

Bhishma reacts sweetly when Satyavati tells him about her premarital relation and how Vyasa was born. Then how was Kunti at fault as per Bhishma's own logic.

About Bhishma knowing about Karna, when did he find out about this is not clear. Narada told him, but when? I am guessing it was not before the birth of the Pandavas or before Pandu's marriage because Bhishma is the one who mentions Kunti as a potential wife candidate for the princes. So he definitely would not have suggested Kunti had he know back then.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01111.htm

Bhishma said, 'This our celebrated race, resplendent with every virtue and accomplishment, hath all along sovereignty over all other monarchs on earth. Its glory maintained and itself perpetuated by many virtuous and illustrious monarchs of old, the illustrious Krishna (Dwaipayana) and Satyavati and myself have raised you (three) up, in order that it may not be extinct. It behoveth myself and thee also to take such steps that this our dynasty may expand again as the sea. It hath been heard by me that there are three maidens worthy of being allied to our race. One is the daughter of (Surasena of) the Yadava race; the other is the daughter of Suvala; and the third is the princess of Madra. O son, all these maidens are of course of blue blood. Possessed of beauty and pure blood, they are eminently fit for an alliance with our family.

Now, considering Bhishma knew and he was against Kunti's kids, he could have easily told YUDHISHTHIR about the Karna secret. Yudhishthir would give up throne in a jify (the reason why neither Kunti nor Krishna told Yudhi about the secret but told KARNA about it as they had no intention of giving Karna the throne). Karna being the king candidate would happily give it to Duryodhan because in no way was he interested in the imperial throne is clear. So it would be Duryodhan. Bhishma didn't do any of this, he had too many ways to make sure Duryodhan got the throne. Why didn't he do any of it is strange to me if he wanted it.

I actually don't think Karna was a result of Brahmin Sewa, because then there was no reason to hide it. Maiden girls were expected to do this and they did not have to hide it. Satyavati was never into hiding Vyas. Vyas always knew who his mother was. Kunti's case was different, she never said it at all.

Well on Yudhishtir knowing about the truth, he would have definitely tried to get back as Kunti Krishna feared but even he knew that legally Karna had no standing and on getting to know about it Yudhishtir would again become a contender so that wasn't a good solution anyway.

Even without Karna angle a direct descandents of Satyavati has to be preferable over only legal one

Bheeshm was definitely trying to get Duryodhan on throne in fact maximum time it was Dury who held the administrative position till they were alive except the few years Yudhishtir was the Yuvaraj. In fact even after partition, Duryodhan was the overlord