Why Parikshit? - Page 3

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Thanks

Is there any thing I can read about panchal after war?

There are bits and pieces scattered in various text. My knowledge is limited to the article that i have road and some post on IF Mahabharata forum. Somebody who has more knowledge in puranas and Upanishads can help

People who presume Abhimanyu to be heir base it on two incidents.

1. Satyaki says during Vanaparva to Yudhishtir, that if you do not want to fight to fulfill the terms of the Dice game, then Yadavas will win back IP and Abhimanyu will rule till you finish the exile.

Terms of Second dice game were exile for Yudhishtir and Draupadi along with his brothers. Since both Yudhishtir and Draupadi were exiled then Prativindhya may not have right to rule. In which case since Yadavas were planning to win back IP it makes sense they will have one of their own as regent till Yudhishtir returns.

Which is what the above statement meant.

It doesn't mean Abhimanyu was the heir.

2. Abhimanyu is called Krishnaa's son after he dies and Krishnaa (Draupadi) when Pandavas talk about peace says my father, brother, sons led by Abhimanyu will fight for me.

Again Abhimanyu gets to lead most likely because he is the best warrior. Just like during the period before war, Krishna keeps giving the responsibility of winning the war to Bhima and Arjun. Not to Yudhi.

Responsibilities for winning war ≠ heir to the throne.

Draupadi may or may not have adopted Abhimanyu.

Abhimanyu may or may not have been eldest

Prativindhya may or may not have been Draupadi's son

But as long as Prativindhya existed and he does exist in the epic. He was the heir. Because he was Yudhishtir's son that is sure.

It is King's son who becomes King. It is King who has a right to adopt if he does not have a capable son. Yudhishtir had a son Prativindhya who was just as capable as him. Nowhere in the epic has Yudhishtir been shown as publicly adopting Abhimanyu as his son.

Queen has no rights other than doing Aarthy and Tilak and serve food to Brahmanas. Her adoptions even if that happens is informal and has no meaning in terms of inheritance.

1. Satyaki's statement

2. Son of Krishna mentions

3. VYASA'S statement

He that took his birth as the son of Arjuna, that gladdener of all, that heir to the possessions of the Pandavas

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m15/m15031.htm

CE states outright heir of Pandavas, Volume 10, 1970 (39)

. Subhadra’s son

was the heir of the Pandavas. He was slain by the six maharathas. He was born

from the god Soma, who used yoga to divide himself into two.

ALSO

The timeline calculated is wrong

Pandavas lived in Panchal for some time. It isn't stated it was for a year. Indraprastha was not built before Arjuna's exile. So that 5 or 6 years is wrong. Arjuna's exile took 13 MONTHS as opposed to 12 years as per summary of Mbh given by Vaishampayana.

All in all, 3 years or so. Nowhere during that time are Panchali's children mentioned. The birth of an heir would've been cause for immense celebration.

Re: Yudhishtira being image conscious. At any other point, I would've agreed. But Niyog was common practice then. His own father used Niyog. Under the circumstances, Yudhishtira would never have dissed infertility because to do so would've meant attacking his own legitimacy.

THAT, plus, the above mentions of Abhimanyu as heir need to mean he was adopted by Yudhishtira and Panchali.

Re: Panchali's rights.

1. She brought the money into the marriage.

After Yudhishtira becomes established, he tried to exert his rights. We all know how that ended.

2. The armies on Pandava side came because of in-laws, out of which a big chunk was provided by Panchal. Dhrishtadyumna bluntly stated he was doing it for Panchali.

No matter what law says, money and might bring rights 😆 as Bheeshma tells Panchali.

Below is link describing IP before Narada arrives. It mentions fortifications, gardens with different trees Laden with fruit, trenches as big as rivers.

Leave everything else on a barren land no tree can come up immediately and start bearing fruits.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01210.htm

You are confusing background influence with legal rights. Draupadi had tremendous influence not just on account of her dowry or father but also on account of her intelligence I totally believe that.

But legal rights are completely different. Remember it was King Bharat who adopts Bhumanyu. It was Adhirath who adopted Karna. It was Santanu who www going to adopt Kripa, kripi.

Men had the right to formally adopt, women did not. Draupadi could scream to the whole world henceforth Abhimanyu is her son, the whole world could also keep calling Abhimanyu as her son, but unless Yudhishtir says Abhimanyu is my son, or someone else says Yudhishtir declared Abhimanyu as his son, he will not be heir

In the entire epic there is no mention of Yudhishtir formally adopting Abhimanyu.

And yes celebrations of Upapandavas birth is stated in mutated tone compared to Abhimanyu's birth but then the story is being narrated to Abhimanyu's grandson and not Prativindhya's grandson.

Vyasa states Abhimanyu as Pandavas heir, but just before that he says Draupadi will see her 5 sons.

If she has 5 sons, she was not childless, and timeline I gave above makes it impossible for her first four sons to be born after Abhimanyu.

If she has five sons why will she deprive her sons and make subhadra's son heir.

Even if they were born later, the influential Panchalas that you mentioned why would they tolerate a Yadava on throne when their flesh and blood was there

Heir of Pandavas can also mean heir of their virtues or heir of their weapons. Not necessarily heir to throne.

He is not called Yudhishtir's heir anywhere only Yudhishtir was the King. Pandavas were not Kings.

He becomes heir to the throne when Yudhishtir says he is heir to the throne. There is no mention of him saying that

Parikshit g b may have been declared heir after the war but much before Yadava fratricide. Panchalas were decimated in the war. Yudhishtir was emperor of empty coffers and non existent army when Arjun started for Ashwamedha.

Yadavas were prosperous and their entire army was intact. All their sons and generals were alive and well.

Parikshit as heir gained Yadavas support for Yudhishtir to be emperor again.

Not because Abhimanyu was heir.

I do however believe that Vajra was Yudhishtir and Krishna's grandson and he was given IP. He later moved to Mathura as he had paternal rights over it.

Vyasa says Abhimanyu was Pandavas heir in the same verse that he says Panchali' will see her 5 sons. That should actually make it clear he was the heir,not the oppiste. 😊 He could not be heir without Yudhishtira adopting him.

Also, at the end of the day, clout is what seals the deal, not law, as Bheeshma clearly says.

Also note: Parikshit is not the one called heir here. It is Abhimanyu who was already dead. So it wasn't as though Vyasa was merely stating who was left.

If you take Vyasa's one statement as true you have to take the other too. It cannot be one true other false.

If we accept Vyasa's statement that Abhimanyu was heir then we have to accept Draupadi had five sons, that she was not childless

And if your statement influence is what gets rights is correct

And if your statement that Draupadi and Panchalas had the influence is correct

Then please explain why will Draupadi and Panchalas use their influence to make Abhimanyu heir when their own flesh and blood five sons existed.

Why will Panchalas use their influence to make blood of Yadava as heir.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

If you take Vyasa's one statement as true you have to take the other too. It cannot be one true other false.

If we accept Vyasa's statement that Abhimanyu was heir then we have to accept Draupadi had five sons, that she was not childless

And if your statement influence is what gets rights is correct

And if your statement that Draupadi and Panchalas had the influence is correct

Then please explain why will Draupadi and Panchalas use their influence to make Abhimanyu heir when their own flesh and blood five sons existed.

Why will Panchalas use their influence to make blood of Yadava as heir.

Sons can be any type, even adopted. Heir is usually only one.

Sidenote: what an esoteric point to argue over 😆. I feel like I'm back in academia.