Mahabharat Retelecast Discussion Thread 7 - Page 33

Originally posted by: Armu4eva

But to rule as a King was definitely matter of respect. Obviously for warriors to die in battle field would be a matter for honor but suppose there is no war and a king lives a 100 years, it doesn't mean it somehow reduced the significance so I will disagree with you on that.

Had his kingship been taken from him, had his younger brother been made a king, had his wife & family forsaken him, that would have been a punishment and a lesson.

Not Saying Living long as king was bad, I am saying dying in battlefield was as good, so if you think Yudhishtir wasn't punished then even KaDuDuNi weren't

If KaDuDuNi's punishment was death then that of Yudhishtir was exile n no succession

Originally posted by: naq5

they did name right dushasans son , Laxman i think.

yes why not prativindhya. And as they dint have 1 year rule would they know who yudis son actually was? or Was abhimanyu actually older to the uppandavas?

Laxmana was duryodhan s son whom abhimanyu killed.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Problem is then there are only a few explanations.

1. Abhimanyu was not legit heir. It would then seem like Arjuna was taking advantage of the situation which would make him a bad guy. SATYAKI made the suggestion, not Krishna. Satyaki was Arjuna's most loyal friend, even more than Krishna.

But then, it wouldn't explain the later reluctance to go to war. If Arjuna wanted Abhimanyu to rule, he should've been pushing war. Satyaki was, but not Arjuna. Krishna was, too, but at Panchali's insistence.

2. Abhimanyu was legit heir. In which, it would mean either that Upapandavas were born later or Yudhishtira/Panchali allowed Prativindhya to be sidelined.

If Yudhishtira/Panchali allowed Prativindhya to be sidelined just to keep Yadavas happy, question then becomes why did Yudhishtira then not want war? After all, the man had been willing to sideline his own children. Also, why did Panchal cooperate when it was time for war? Almost the entire army on Pandava side belong to Panchal.

For Upapandavas to be born later, it would have to mean Panchali remained childless for several years. Bheema at least could reproduce. We believe Yudhishtira produced Yaudheya. In the presence OR absence of polyandry, you'd have to believe Panchali was infertile for her not to reproduce at least once. In which case, the Upapandavas were adopted. In which case, there was no reason for Abhimanyu not to be adopted as well. But again, then why not Prativindhya/Yaudheya as heir? This leads to the next obvious extrapolation (not interpolation): perhaps Panchali had some say in who was heir after all, and her choice was Abhimanyu. Which doesn't sit well with a certain kind of reader.😆

3. Abhimanyu taught Upapandavas. There are enough clues in text without announcing names as to who was heir.

if uppandavas were adopted that dosent mean Abhimanyu was adopted too. he is said to be having born to arjun & subhadra. If you mean to say draupadi adopted arjun and subhadras child why would subhadra give away her only son.😕 yudi would have to adopt him too then. If he mentioned as yudis son ever

if abhimanyu was teaching his brothers wouldnt that make him older to them

Originally posted by: Armu4eva

Can u cite some example for this? I am aware of only the shanti prastav/ war thing.

It's too long to cite. Bhagavat yana parva within Udyoga parva is what you need.

Krishna admits to Vidura what he is up to:

Though I strive forwelfare, if Duryodhana suspects me, my heart will at least be satisfied that I have been freedfrom a debt.70 If a friend does not intervene, to the best of his endeavours, and maintains adistance, when there is dissension among relatives, the wise know that he is not a friend.Those who do not know about dharma and are foolish and hostile should not say thatKrishna, though capable, did not restrain the angry Kurus and Pandavas. I have come here tohelp both sides. After having made the effort, I will no longer be blamed by men. Afterhaving listened to my beneficial words, in conformity with dharma and artha, if that childignores them, he will come under the power of destiny. If I can bring about peace with theKurus, without harming the cause of the Pandavas, I will accomplish a great objective andearn merit, saving the Kurus from the noose of death. If Dhritarashtra’s sons pay attention tomy virtuous and wise words, full of dharma and artha and designed to ensure welfare, I willearn the respect of the Kurus for having come here. All the kings of the earth together are notsufficient to withstand me when I am enraged, like deer before a lion.”’

@Bold . See the part where he says he won't sacrifice the cause of the Pandavas.

Later, Krishna's tone is not in the least conciliatory. He threatens Kauravas and taunts, then calls them criminals. He was making sure Suyodhana refuses.

Read the whole Parva. it's illuminating.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Not Saying Living long as king was bad, I am saying dying in battlefield was as good, so if you think Yudhishtir wasn't punished then even KaDuDuNi weren't

If KaDuDuNi's punishment was death then that of Yudhishtir was exile n no succession

The Infamous 4 were defeated so that's definitely a punishment. Had Yudi alone been exiled, I would completely accept that as a just punishment.

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

Laxmana was duryodhan s son whom abhimanyu killed.

ok got it mixed up

but it was dushy's son who killed abhimanyu right. i forget his name though

Originally posted by: naq5

they did name right dushasans son , Laxman i think.

yes why not prativindhya. And as they dint have 1 year rule would they know who yudis son actually was? or Was abhimanyu actually older to the uppandavas?

No they didn't name him. The entire fight sequence mentions him as Dusshashan's son/your grandson (since it's Sanjay narrating Dhritrashtra) and not by his name

Lakshman was Duryodhan's son who was killed by Abhimanyu just before the joint attack on Abhi.

Actually after seeing Abhimanyu attacking n defeating everyone who came on his way, the top line Kaurav commanders including Drona Karna n Shalya decided to move out and restrategize.

As they were going towards safer regions, Lakshman (most probably realising that this way they are giving Abhimanyu an opportunity to kill more of their soldiers) turned and started heading towards Abhimanyu.(To think of it he challenged Abhimanyu at a time when the top layer commanders were afraid to face him. Shows his mettle)

Duryodhan having seen this decided to follow him despite Karna's insistence to not go since Abhimanyu was looking invincible then.

Since Duryodhan returned towards the area where Abhimanyu was, the others had no option but ro return

Meanwhile Abhimanyu n Lakshman had a fierce fight but Abhimanyu overpowered Lakshman and tied him by arrows also killed his Charioteer.

Before Duryodhan or his cronies could save him, Lakshman was killed by Abhimanyu right in front of Duryodhan's eyes.

It was then that Duryodhan was outraged, aggrieved and ordered his officials that come what may, do whatever is needed, but Abhimanyu shouldn't see the sunset

About Prativindhya this still doesn't seem a reasonable answer, even if they didn't know the father of Prativindhya still he was the son of any 5, so if Arjun's son could become the heir why not the son of others

Originally posted by: naq5

if uppandavas were adopted that dosent mean Abhimanyu was adopted too. he is said to be having born to arjun & subhadra. If you mean to say draupadi adopted arjun and subhadras child why would subhadra give away her only son.😕 yudi would have to adopt him too then. If he mentioned as yudis son ever

if abhimanyu was teaching his brothers wouldnt that make him older to them

Adopted as heir. Not adopted as son.

Abhimanyu WAS older. That's what I was trying to say. Which would mean Upapndavas were not born until after Arjuna's exile. Impossible if Panchali were fertile. Ie, Upapandvas were adopted. Even then, Abhimanyu couldn't become heir over Prativindhya/Yaudheya unless Yudhishtira agreed.

One reason for Yudhishtira to skip his own son would be Panchal's support. Ie, panchali forced the issue.

Or Panchali had no interest in it, and Krishna forced the issue.

Originally posted by: Armu4eva

The Infamous 4 were defeated so that's definitely a punishment. Had Yudi alone been exiled, I would completely accept that as a just punishment.

But the children of the infamous 4 also were defeated so the punishment is to the entire family always

Originally posted by: naq5

ok got it mixed up

but it was dushy's son who killed abhimanyu right. i forget his name though

Yes Dushy's son killed Abhimanyu but he hasn't been named

Till date we don't know the name of Abhimanyu's killer☺️