Remove following characters from the epic - Page 5

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Genetics were not what determined the parentage of a person. Like Dhritarashtra and Pandu, despite being Vyasa's sons, were not considered Brahmins. Vyasa did have sons by his own wife, and those were Brahmins. However, the sons he produced in Ambika and Ambalika were considered Vichitravirya's sons, since those 2 were Vichitravirya's wives. Similarly, Vidura too was treated as a son of Vichitravirya, since his birth was the equivalent of Ambika turning over a maid to her husband, and in that society, kings had sexual ownership of not just wives, but maids as well. However, since his mother was a shudra (not suta), he was not entitled to become king, but that didn't mean that he himself was a Shudra.

Also, even though he may have been Dharamraj incarnate, that didn't make him Yudhisthir's biological father any more than Rama was a father of Pradhyumna. Yudhisthir's biological father was Dharamraj, true, but not in Vidura's form. Besides, Kunti herself was a kshatrani - sister of Vasudev and married wife of Pandu, so no son of hers would have had any problems being king. However, Vidura and Yudhisthir did share a special bond due to the fact that one was Dharma reborn while the other was his son. Similarly, the Pandavas were not considered devas like, say, Indra's son Jayanta: they derived their rights from Pandu, the husband of their mom, rather than Indra, Yamaraj or Vayu, who actually produced them in Kunti

I am confused about this reply and the usage for it. I never said that the genetics would have had any effect of the parentage. I never said that a person has the caste of his biological parents

Dhritrashtra, Pandu and Vidur all three were considered Kshetraj santaan to Vichitraveer. Born by Niyog, none of them would have been considered Vyas Putra. But a Dasi Putra can not inherit. Manusmriti is pretty clear about it, they are given all the respect, support and nurturing that the other sons of a person (through his wife) gets, but Inheritance isn't for them. Shudra or not Vidur couldn't have have had inherited from Vichitraveer ( even if he was the biological son of Vichitraveer by a Dasi) why go far, even in the same family, in the next generation, Yuyutsu was elder to Duryodhan and Yudhishtir and was the son of Dhritrashtra, yet he was never considered for the throne because he was a Dasi Putra. That however doesn't mean that Vidur couldn't have wanted to become a king, he however knew it wasn't possible so never actively tried for it

Coming to the second part, we know that it's mentioned that Pandavas are the kids of gods, but if you remove divinity, this becomes impossible. Without divinity they were normal human born children born by Niyog of Kunti/Madri with humans. This is the reason, many historians do believe that Vidur (being considered the Dharmaraj incarnate) was actually the biological father of Yudhishtir. Also HearMeRoar said that it is also implied by Vyas that he was the son of Vidur. We are discussing that possibility here

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Let's remove Shakuni from the story. Other than the game of dice, what changes?

Also, what if Draupadi was the one and only wife of the Pandavas? No Subhadra, no Hidimbi, no Uloopi...

I was reading it and they have mentioned Shakuni was an influential figure along with Karna in Duryodhana's childhood, since Karna was a child himself, I am gonna say that without Shakuni, Duryodhan would have been a better person

If Draupadi was the only wife then Pandavas would lose most of their alliances @HearMeRoar said that most of their alliances were their in laws, so they wouldn't go for the war without alliances

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Then Yudhishtir wouldn't have got the chance to prove himself great by saving Nakul over Bheem Arjun during Yaksha Prashna

Aside someone needed to kill Shakuni.

Khair more importantly I don't remember where it is exactly Mentioned (will check and update), but I read that the five villages that Pandavas had asked for during Shanti Parva were decided upon by Sahdev. He wasn't actually ready for being satisfied with small villages, yet wanted the Pandavas to look great by trying to avoid the war as much possible.

He therefore selected the five most strategically important villages, losing the ownership of whose for Kauravas would have meant forever threat to Hastinapur, so that Kauravas reject the Shanti prastav

Someone else could have killed Shakuni. The second reason you gave is important, so probably Sahadev did have some importance, however I still feel these two, especially Nakul serves no purpose. I can explain Vidur and Keechak's significance. Dushsashan was just a sidekick. But Nakul and Sahdev honestly have little relevance IMO 😐

Originally posted by: NoraSM

I was reading it and they have mentioned Shakuni was an influential figure along with Karna in Duryodhana's childhood, since Karna was a child himself, I am gonna say that without Shakuni, Duryodhan would have been a better person

If Draupadi was the only wife then Pandavas would lose most of their alliances @HearMeRoar said that most of their alliances were their in laws, so they wouldn't go for the war without alliances

Karna wasn't a kid during Dury's childhood.

Considering that Kunti married after Karna's birth, got into Hastinapur, Pandu married Madri and then after the Brahmin killing instance decided to go for an exile after which Gandhaari got pregnant and had Duryodhan after 2 years pregnancy, Karna was at least 5 years elder to Duryodhan (could even be more since a lot of things happened in between the births of these two) so when Duryodhan was entering into his teens, Karna was already an adult

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

No, Yudhisthir could easily have killed Shakuni instead. Or someone else, like Iravana, could have, just like he killed several of Shakuni's brothers

Honestly, I never got the point of Pandu's marriage to Madri. Did nothing for either him nor his sons: during his life, Shalya wasn't an ally, and when his sons needed him, Shalya ended up as their enemy.

Pandu should have married Gandhari instead, and Dhritarashtra should have married Madri 😈

@bold - there is something in these lines in Indonesian Mahabharat. Gandhari wanted to marry Pandu but Pandu gave her away to Dhrit and hence Gandhari always wanted her sons to kill Pandu's sons. 😆

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Didn't Vidur tell everyone that Dhruti was blind therefore he can't be King?

Wasn't it Bhishma?

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Someone else could have killed Shakuni. The second reason you gave is important, so probably Sahadev did have some importance, however I still feel these two, especially Nakul serves no purpose. I can explain Vidur and Keechak's significance. Dushsashan was just a sidekick. But Nakul and Sahdev honestly have little relevance IMO 😐

Nakul Sahdev (especially Nakul) weren't even sidekicks in real sense. They were just there. This is another proof that Mahabharata is history and not a work of fiction, had it been the latter, Nakul Sahdev or Madri weren't needed to be introduced as characters at all. .

The only importance (if at all there was any) of Nakul was that Yudhishtir chose him over Arjun and Bheem after Yaksha Prashna. So he was needed to make Yudhishtir look Mahaan.

I think the only (again if you really want to call) important people he killed in the war were the three sons of Karna on day 18 Satyasen, Susen and Chitrasen (I know they weren't important just wanted Nakul to have some importance)

Sahdev however was intelligent and could anticipate things pretty well. Before Krishna was leaving for Shanti prastav, he tied Krishna in chains. On being asked the reason, he said that he thinks this is exactly what would happen to Krishna in Kutu Rajsabha and hence it was necessary for Krishna to learn how to free himself, which Krishna did.

If you remove divinity, this is really something important he did, something no one else was able to foresee.

Shakuni ... Well even if he wasn't killed, nothing would have changed, he had lost his brothers and sons, so even if he survived the war, Pandavas would have easily gained Gandhaar to make pauper. So his death isn't something important if you ask me.

Missed out on a lot, but I think, the characters mentioned in the initial post is important because-

Vidur- If we do consider he fathered Yudhishthir, alot changes. Apart from that too, Vidur was a dasiputra born of Vyasa's niyog and also the only brother among Dhrit, Pandu and Vidur who was an able king. Recently FlauntPessimism had made a thread about why Vidur was not a king. We did debate there, so Vidur's presence does raise a lot of questions of inheritance. Why can't a dasiputra be a king if he was most able in Kuru Kul where MERIT comes first?

Vidur is also pivotal in supporting the Pandavas. He was the only one who genuinely did support the Pandavas. The Varnavat incident, the Dyut Sabha episode are important examples. So I think he was very important.

Keechak - His murder was what lead to Kauravas understanding where the Pandavas were hiding. Also, it does play an important role in character development. It explains Bheem and Panchali's motives and their characteristics.

Dushashan- I had read in Pattanaik's book that it is probable that Gandhari had just two sons, Duryodhan and Dushashan and not 100 brothers. Dushashan isn't exactly an important one but he was a part of Duryodhan's gang of DDSK. I think he was important from Duryodhan's POV. If you remove him, it had to be either Karna or Dury himself who had to bring Draupadi from the room. So I guess, not too much of a difference.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Nakul Sahdev (especially Nakul) weren't even sidekicks in real sense. They were just there. This is another proof that Mahabharata is history and not a work of fiction, had it been the latter, Nakul Sahdev or Madri weren't needed to be introduced as characters at all. .

The only importance (if at all there was any) of Nakul was that Yudhishtir chose him over Arjun and Bheem after Yaksha Prashna. So he was needed to make Yudhishtir look Mahaan.

I think the only (again if you really want to call) important people he killed in the war were the three sons of Karna on day 18 Satyasen, Susen and Chitrasen (I know they weren't important just wanted Nakul to have some importance)

Sahdev however was intelligent and could anticipate things pretty well. Before Krishna was leaving for Shanti prastav, he tied Krishna in chains. On being asked the reason, he said that he thinks this is exactly what would happen to Krishna in Kutu Rajsabha and hence it was necessary for Krishna to learn how to free himself, which Krishna did.

If you remove divinity, this is really something important he did, something no one else was able to foresee.

Shakuni ... Well even if he wasn't killed, nothing would have changed, he had lost his brothers and sons, so even if he survived the war, Pandavas would have easily gained Gandhaar to make pauper. So his death isn't something important if you ask me.

Shakuni's death just served the revenge purpose. I too think it served no important purpose. Sahadev I do understand had something to contribute but Nakul is absolutely unnecessary apart from that Yaksha episode. However I don't believe dead people can come to life by answering some questions. Yaksha Prashna is beautifully written. Hats off to the poet who composed this but it doesn't serve any purpose to the story except give Yudhishthir some footage. If we remove that, it makes no difference. I anyway feel that's a folktale. So, if u do remote Nakul only, it just decreases some verses. :P

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Karna wasn't a kid during Dury's childhood.

Considering that Kunti married after Karna's birth, got into Hastinapur, Pandu married Madri and then after the Brahmin killing instance decided to go for an exile after which Gandhaari got pregnant and had Duryodhan after 2 years pregnancy, Karna was at least 5 years elder to Duryodhan (could even be more since a lot of things happened in between the births of these two) so when Duryodhan was entering into his teens, Karna was already an adult

Good Point

Karna and Shakuni are mentioned in Bhima poisoning incident, which happened before they started their lessons from Kripa, Drona came way later

Karna and Arjun's enmity started during they were studying under Drona

Why would Karna hold grudges against Pandavas from childhood/teenage?

I was wondering, if Shakuni influenced both Duryodhana and Karna