Yudhisthira vs Duryodhana: The Legitimacy of the Claim to Throne - Page 4

Duryodhan committed many sin in comparison to yudhistar

But duryodhan never repent he was very egoistic because his greed his anger his demand never stop

And yudhistar did repent and even said I will suffer all this alone but Arjun said how can I live u alone in forest

Yudhistar may have some fault but at least he was not greedy he was not jealous and he was not egoist

I don't understand this agyatvas loop hole calculations

I know only that thing that pandav did complete succfully agyatvas

If duryodhan claim it that means he was lying it is another cunning trick to send pandav forest again

In fact duryodhan never identify pandav in agyatvas

https://www.hindisahityadarpan.in/2017/04/virat-parv-mahabharat-stories-in-hindi.html

When duryodhan recognize pandav agyatvas is completed

I think bhishm here give diplomatic answer to duryodhan

Originally posted by: surabhi01

I don't understand this agyatvas loop hole calculations

I know only that thing that pandav did complete succfully agyatvas

If duryodhan claim it that means he was lying it is another cunning trick to send pandav forest again

In fact duryodhan never identify pandav in agyatvas

Oh ho. How do you calculate 13 years? There are different calendars prevalent across the world. Even in India there are many, solar, lunar mixed of both etc. Lunar calendar has only 354 days, solar has 365 days, then there are others basis which there are 365 days on normal years but have additional days in a few years(like leap year) others have 360 days (12 months of 30 days each). So what exactly would be 13 years? 13*354? 13*365? 13*365.25? 13*360? Each will have very different result

The calalendar to use for this calculation was not predecided. They did complete the time basis the calendar Pandavas were following but not basis the one Duryodhan was following. He took the higher numbered year calculation and Pandavas took the average numbered year calculation.

This was his plea for the situation. Bheeshm and others said that since the year wasn't defined at the start, hence now he can not claim otherwise and deny Agyatwaas condition unfulfilled, but Duryodhan being Duryodhan remained adamant on his claim.

Originally posted by: surabhi01

Duryodhan committed many sin in comparison to yudhistar

But duryodhan never repent he was very egoistic because his greed his anger his demand never stop

And yudhistar did repent and even said I will suffer all this alone but Arjun said how can I live u alone in forest

Yudhistar may have some fault but at least he was not greedy he was not jealous and he was not egoist

Yudhishtir had many faults but he had just one advantage that he opponent was worse

Ok yudhistar has many fault but at least he has principles he always follow path of truth he was kind he was honest he has control over his anger he which duryodhan completely lack

Btw it was not duryodhan who use to give suggestions to dhrithrashtra but it was vidhur who use to give suggestions to dhrithrashtra as vidur was minister of dhrithrashtra at that time even when pandav went to forest

Originally posted by: surabhi01

Ok yudhistar has many fault but at least he has principles he always follow path of truth he was kind he was honest he has control over his anger he which duryodhan completely lack

Btw it was not duryodhan who use to give suggestions to dhrithrashtra but it was vidhur who use to give suggestions to dhrithrashtra as vidur was minister of dhrithrashtra at that time even when pandav went to forest

Vidur did give suggestions to Dhritrashtra but he followed Duryodhan more

Saying that this discussion was never about Yudhishtir was better or not than Duryodhan. There can be no doubt that he was. Anyone with even basic knowledge of Mahabharata will say that.

Krishna ji would have never supported him otherwise.

The discussion was around your claim that had Duryodhan become the king, the citizens would have suffered a lot, that was not definitely suggested in the epic

It was never about the better king for the people.

There is no claim to suggest one was better than the other in terms of administration or even to suggest either Dhritarashtra or Duryodhana were evil rulers harassing or being cruel to its subjects

It was a family war on who will ascend the throne which unfortunately caused massive destruction as almost the whole Bharath varsh took part in the war supporting either side

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Duryodhan could have been a capable ruler, but if it was MERIT first, who decides who is meritous? Who decides what is merit? These terms are subjective.

For example, we know of many kings who are bad human beings but good rules. So what exactly is merit? Administrative skills, or skills of dharma/being a good human being?

Duryodhana might have had administrative skills, but this was not democracy but monarchy. In monarchy, as per the law of primogeniture, the eldest son of the KING becomes a king no?

In case of Dhritarashtra and Pandu, this was an exceptional case. When he was denied kingship I don't think it was done due to merit (we cannot consider a physical disability as part of merit). He was blind and as per the laws of the state, a blind man could not have been a king because he simply would be incapable of ruling. It is harsh but that makes sense. This doesn't make him any less capable in administrative skills. Pandu was also ill but he did not lack a sense organ and hence he was made king. I don't think Pandu was chosen because he was a more able king.

How is blindness, deafness etc be part of merit?

Will respond to it in a while. The answer is a long one

Enjoyed all the points made here.

I also strongly think that it was not as one-sided as most people believe.

Duryodhana did have a strong claim to the throne.

Just to add one point, about the Vajra body thing, this was later addition.

In the original version, Duryodhana was simply better than Bhima in mace fighting and hence Bhima had to adopt unfair means ( hit him on the thighs) to win. Duryodhana did not have iron body or Gandhari any special power.

This folklore was probably added in later to justify the unfair killing.

It's 1 am almost. I will check tomorrow the KMG source. I am pretty sure that Vajra story is not there.

A biggest quality of king that he should take care of all citizens with care and selflessly he should not be partial

Supposed if duryodhan become king then would duryodhan have taken care of pandav ? Will duryodhan after becoming king stop enimity with pandavs and give them all basic facilities .

.

Would have not duryodhan partial to pandav if he become king.

So if duryodhan become king he would have partial

Lack of tolerance . Indeed duryodhan has lack of tolerance for small small things he invited war even try to kill

So if had become king then for small small mistakes he would given harsh punishment

So to become king one should able to give right and proper justice

And duryodhan was unable to give right and proper justice b

And duryodhan who was always revenge full did himself so many wrong thing uncessary enimity with pandav ( in fact pandav never claims for throne but still he did wrong thing with them many times)

So how duryodhan was position to punish the wrong things when he himself did wrong things

If duryodhan want to become king then he should proove it by doing noble deed by helping praja instead of harming but he never help any praja

But only thing in mind that too destroy pandav

. If duryodhan want he could have utilized his time in welfare of hastinapur and later duryodhan would have king of hastinapur and yudhistar would have king of indraprasth

But duryodhan decided to take meaning less revenge from pandav for small things