~| Whatever you want to argue about |~ - Page 89

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Anybody want to talk about this ??

Vyasa calls Panchali Saraswati ar one point, but it was clearly a metaphor.

Prof IB is a big fan of Panchali, and Panchali COULD think on her feet. So yeah, comparable.

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Anybody want to talk about this ??

I tried reading it, but sorry its very technical and I am unable to understand it, could someone please explain to me. What exactly the writer wants to admit

@Chiilli @HearMeRoar calling you both for rescue

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Vyasa calls Panchali Saraswati ar one point, but it was clearly a metaphor.

Prof IB is a big fan of Panchali, and Panchali COULD think on her feet. So yeah, comparable.

Think on her feet?

I am unable the understand. Does the writer want to make some connection between Saraswati n Draupadi??

What exactly does he want to state by giving us the writing techniques.

Kindly explain in simpler words

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Think on her feet?

I am unable the understand. Does the writer want to make some connection between Saraswati n Draupadi??

What exactly does he want to state by giving us the writing techniques.

Kindly explain in simpler words

Ok. Panchali is called Brhati Shyama. That part is true. Shyama seems to be another of her names. Brhati means large or towering presence etc.

IB goes through a whole lot of language analysis and text analysis to say Panchali is indeed dark and a huge presence.

Then he says Saraswati is also called Brhati. Plus, Saraswati was also dark in some texts. Therefore, Panchali is Saraswati archetype more than Shri.

He is clearly a fan of Panchali but twists himself into jalebis to suggest Panchali was not Shri.

The mention of Angirasa in the article is good though. Kuru until then was Angirasa bloodline which stopped with intro of Vasishta blood. Then came Panchali whose origins were hidden except to say she was born from fire. Yeah, she was Angirasa as well.

What most readers don't realize is Mahabharata was not only a kshatriya vs. kshatriya conflict. There was the brahmana vs. brahmana power struggle going on between Vasishta-Varunis and Angirasas.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

He is clearly a fan of Panchali but twists himself into jalebis to suggest Panchali was not Shri.

The mention of Angirasa in the article is good though. Kuru until then was Angirasa bloodline which stopped with intro of Vasishta blood. Then came Panchali whose origins were hidden except to say she was born from fire. Yeah, she was Angirasa as well.

What most readers don't realize is Mahabharata was not only a kshatriya vs. kshatriya conflict. There was the brahmana vs. brahmana power struggle going on between Vasishta-Varunis and Angirasas.

Yes that was something which made much sense and a point to note.

With the entry of Vyas bloodline, Agniras blood was gone, Draupadi assuming was from Agniras clan brought this back to the lineage, unfortunately her sons all died, so the Agniras lineage couldn't be taken forward

Now that you said about Brahmin vs Brahmin conflict, could Ashwathama have any goals in removing Agniras lineage (Draupadi's son) from Kuru line?

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

.

Yes that was something which made much sense and a point to note.

With the entry of Vyas bloodline, Agniras blood was gone, Draupadi assuming was from Agniras clan brought this back to the lineage, unfortunately her sons all died, so the Agniras lineage couldn't be taken forward

Now that you said about Brahmin vs Brahmin conflict, could Ashwathama have any goals in removing Agniras lineage (Draupadi's son) from Kuru line?

Abhimanyu was not Vasishta Varuni bloodline, but Uttara was. Panchali's sons and Parikshit would've been Angirasa.

Ashwatthama was Bharadwaja Angirasa.

I don't think Subhadra was Angirasa as she grew up with Vasudev and Rohini, not Nanda who I'm beginning to suspect was actually Angirasa.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Abhimanyu was not Vasishta Varuni bloodline, but Uttara was. Panchali's sons and Parikshit would've been Angirasa.

Ashwatthama was Bharadwaja Angirasa.

I don't think Subhadra was Angirasa as she grew up with Vasudev and Rohini, not Nanda who I'm beginning to suspect was actually Angirasa.

Uttara was from Agnirasa? How come

Secondly we know Vyas was in open support with Pandavas, what would be the reason for it? Afterall Kauravas was biologically his grandsons so his blood lineage unlike Pandavas. Also why would he want Agniras blood back into Kuru through Draupadi.

Wasn't he into the Brahmin war

Ashwathama doesn't seem to gain anything by killing Uppandavas then

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Uttara was from Agnirasa? How come

Secondly we know Vyas was in open support with Pandavas, what would be the reason for it? Afterall Kauravas was biologically his grandsons so his blood lineage unlike Pandavas. Also why would he want Agniras blood back into Kuru through Draupadi.

Wasn't he into the Brahmin war

Ashwathama doesn't seem to gain anything by killing Uppandavas then

hishma said, “When that great kalpa was over, the descendant of Angiras was born and all the

gods were delighted that a priest had been born for the gods.

1117 O king! The words Brihat,

Brahma and Mahat progressively convey the same meaning and he came to be known as Brihaspati

because he possessed all these qualities.

1118 The foremost king, Uparichara Vasu, became his disciple.

He properly studied the sacred texts of the Chitrashikhandins.

CE, VOL 9, 1651 (323)

Uparichara Vasu was the ancestor of Virat, king of Matsya. Actually, also father of Satyavati, so Angirasa clan wasn't completely diluted when Vyasa came into the pic😆

Right it was still biologically Agniras blood

But still it's funny that Vyas didn't want his own blood line on throne