Why Parikshit? - Page 4

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

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

If Draupadi already has Prativindhya as biological child why would she make Abhimanyu heir.

And if Draupadi was childless and she had adopted Abhimanyu already what is the need to adopt Prativindhya for Yudhishtir again, because as you said heir can be only one.

She can still adopt satanika for Nakul, sutasoma for Bhima and Shrutasen for Sahdev to maintain equality for the brothers. But there was no need for adopting prativindhya and declare as son for Yudhishtir

I am having too much fun here

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

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Either she thought it would keep Krishna happy to have his nephew as heir

Or she simply liked Abhimanyu better. Arjuna does say Abhimanyu was her favorite.

Then they made him heir for no reason at all 😆. Eenie, meenie, mynie, mo.🤣

HE WAS the heir, though. That much is irrefutable.

This is why I said Panchali most likely had no sons of her own. If all were adopted, one from each Pandava, then it makes sense to make Abhimanyu heir.

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

And why can't vajra get ip ?? He was yudhishtra s grandson too. He was his daughter s son so i don't think why is it so hard to believe even he did got ip

Suthanu is just a folktale AFAIK. Is there any version of Mahabharata that mentions her? How are we so sure of her existence based on Puranas and folktales?

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

But Nakula and Sahdev are never called sons of Kunti. They are clearly called sons of Madri or sons of Pandu.

Arjun's another name is also Krishna. Krishna is not alone Draupadi's name.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Suthanu is just a folktale AFAIK. Is there any version of Mahabharata that mentions her? How are we so sure of her existence based on Puranas and folktales?

Suthanu is certainly not a folkfore. Harivasma mentions her vayu puran mention her i recently read a book about ancient dynasties there too she is mentioned as vajra s mother plus citation i posted clearly stated that reings of ip was handed over to vajra why ?? Because he was yudhishtra s grandson as he was krishna hence he got both the kingdom. She had been mentioned too many times in various places to be a folkfore.

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

.

Suthanu is certainly not a folkfore. Harivasma mentions her vayu puran mention her i recently read a book about ancient dynasties there too she is mentioned as vajra s mother plus citation i posted clearly stated that reings of ip was handed over to vajra why ?? Because he was yudhishtra s grandson as he was krishna hence he got both the kingdom. She had been mentioned too many times in various places to be a folkfore.

So why did Vyasa decide to not mention YUDHISHTHIR's daughter who was a protagonist in the story? Harivamsa Vayu Puran are all composed AFTER the Mahabharat. Besides, there's no reason to believe Mahabharat is 100% history, infact little can prove that.

Yudhishthir's daughter whose son inherited IP is not even mentioned once in the epic?

And there's no reason to believe Vajra WAS Yudhi's grandson just because he inherited Indraprastha.

If you believe everything in Harivamsa and VayuPuran then alot changes. You can't choose to believe ones that sound good and remove what doesn't.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Arjun's another name is also Krishna. Krishna is not alone Draupadi's name.

How many times in entire epic is Arjuna called Krishna except in combo with male Krishna?

Panchali on the other hand is constantly called Krishna.

And sometimes Abhimanyu is called son of Arjuna and son of Krishna in the same sentence!

😆I don't even get why this is a point of contention.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Suthanu is just a folktale AFAIK. Is there any version of Mahabharata that mentions her? How are we so sure of her existence based on Puranas and folktales?

Suthanu is mentioned in SB HV and other Puranas too

If you completely reject SB then, you would not know who Krishna was, why did he have issues with Jarasangh or Rukmi. Why was he called Ranchhor

You have to believe in SB for the Krishna side of story. Mahabharata is mainly about Pandavas and Kauravas, Krishna doesn't have his own Itihas in it

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

So why did Vyasa decide to not mention YUDHISHTHIR's daughter who was a protagonist in the story? Harivamsa Vayu Puran are all composed AFTER the Mahabharat. Besides, there's no reason to believe Mahabharat is 100% history, infact little can prove that.

Yudhishthir's daughter whose son inherited IP is not even mentioned once in the epic?

And there's no reason to believe Vajra WAS Yudhi's grandson just because he inherited Indraprastha.

If you believe everything in Harivamsa and VayuPuran then alot changes. You can't choose to believe ones that sound good and remove what doesn't.

You don't believe mb is a history you believe it is a text probably. But i do believe hence the entire base of the discussion ends here because if it is just a prose as you believe then you will stick to text or to fiction story that is

Since i believe in the existence i will certainly looks for other books other writings etc

Hence let us agree to disagree