Why Parikshit? - Page 6

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.

Usually, the first wife of any king had first dibs on all his sons, no matter who else gave birth to them. Like Kaushalya got the first respects of not just Rama, but also Lakshman, Bharat and Shatrughan

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I guess it's a fact that Yudhishthir was married to Devika. Devika and he had a son- Yaudheya. How come he was not made King? Did he die in the war? Why was Parikshit chosen, he was not in anyway related to Yudhishthir.

There is no mention of Yaudheya either surviving, or dying. While it's possible, as someone else said, that he became the king of Shibi, it's just as possible that he died in the war.

I didn't get all the discussions of Prativindya vs Abhimanyu vs anyone else. How does it matter, when they all died in the war, and Parikshit - Abhimanyu's son - was their only surviving descendant?

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

FYI to all interested: my long held belief is that the son of Krishna part actually signifies Krishna Vasudeva and not Arjuna or Panchali. Because Krishna brought up Abhimanyu. Arjuna was father in name only.

The question was why Parikshit, so I indulged in some speculation is all. Plus, I had time to waste.😆

But Abhimanyu IS the only one declared heir twice in the epic - once by Satyaki and once by Vyasa. Prativindhya is never declared heir.

Arjuna was father in name only if one believes Abhimanyu being a teenager during the war theory, there's much more evidence to suggest otherwise

Also, Bheema was never around Ghato but he is always called Bheema's son, Vyasa won't give Abhimanyu's paternity to Krishna because his mother is Krishna's sister

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

There is no mention of Yaudheya either surviving, or dying. While it's possible, as someone else said, that he became the king of Shibi, it's just as possible that he died in the war.

I didn't get all the discussions of Prativindya vs Abhimanyu vs anyone else. How does it matter, when they all died in the war, and Parikshit - Abhimanyu's son - was their only surviving descendant?

The problem i think is that not only parkishit. But even abhimanyu has been mentioned as pandavas heir way before the war happened. Twice by vyasa himself and once even by satyaki ( citations in previous pages) so why was Abhimanyu called the heir of pandavas ?? When prativindhya was yudhishtra (king) s eldest child

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

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.

Another aspect to that - the Pandavas had no army of their own. Indraprastha's army, which previously belonged to the Pandavas, now belonged to the Kauravas, and fought on that side in the war.

The only armies that the Pandavas had were those of their allies - Panchalas, Matsyas, Srinjayas, Kekayas, Magadh, Chedi,...

Originally posted by: Chiillii

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.

Small factoid here: Bhima was the yuvraj of Hastinapur after the war, upto the time the Pandavas decided to retire. It was never given to Parikshit.

It was the same thing in the Ramayan: Bharat was yuvraj until the end, and Rama wanted to bestow Ayodhya to him, but he declined and proposed that Kush be made the ruler instead

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.

Problem is that Vyasa contradicts himself in different places, so what one reads in one place is not consistent w/ what's mentioned elsewhere.

Like it's mentioned that Dhristadyumna left the forest w/ Draupadi's sons, yet later, Satyabhama tells Draupadi how Rukmini and others at Dwarka love Draupadeyas no less than Pradhyumna, Samba, et al

Nowhere does Vyasa mention any circumstances by which those kids would have left their own Nana's kingdom to go to that of one of their aunt's. Subhadra was only Shrutakarman's step-mom: for the other 4, she was an aunt

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.

Vajra's parents were Anirudha and Rochana, or Anirudha and Usha. Why would Yudhisthir's daughter marry Krishna's grandson, when she'd be relationaly senior.

Vajra was crowned at Indraprastha, but moved on to Mathura. In Dr RC Majumdar's 'The Vedic Age', it's clearly mentioned that Indraprastha remained in the Puru dynasty, and in fact replaced Hastinapur as the capital of the kingdom at various points in time

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Vajra's parents were Anirudha and Rochana, or Anirudha and Usha. Why would Yudhisthir's daughter marry Krishna's grandson, when she'd be relationaly senior.

Vajra was crowned at Indraprastha, but moved on to Mathura. In Dr RC Majumdar's 'The Vedic Age', it's clearly mentioned that Indraprastha remained in the Puru dynasty, and in fact replaced Hastinapur as the capital of the kingdom at various points in time

Yudhishtra and drapaudi daughter suthanu was married to bhanu krishna s son this is mentioned in SB harivasma and vayu puran

Vayu puran mention suthanu as vajra s mother. I recently read a book about ancient dynasties there also suthanu and bhanu are mentioned as vajra s parents so you see there are many text that supports this theory plus i have given citation in previous pages where both arjuna and even yudhishtra mention vajra as king of ip. So that makes sense since he was yudhishtra s grandson

Maybe vajra or one of his progeny returned ip to kuru

But since this particular thing is controversial we can believe what we want unless we get some concrete proof

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Problem is that there are contradictions between MBh and SB.

HV and MBh generally supplement each other and adds Krishna's story quite well.

If we go by SB, Krishna would have been a grandfather by the time Panchali swayamvar happened and so would the Pandavas.

Actually, MB and SB both complement as well as contradict each other.

For instance, in MB, during the Yadava fratricide, Satyaki, while abusing Kritavarma, brings up his involvement in the murder of Satyavati's father Satyajit. Now, the latter story is nowhere in the MB, but readers of SB would know the reference.

Similarly, in SB, there is no mention of the circumstances by which Devaki married Vasudev: a battle b/w Somadatta and Sini. Sini - Satyaki's grandfather - won the battle and Devaki's hand for Vasudev. One would think that such a major story about Krishna's parents will be there in SB, but there's no mention of that, but it's spelt out in detail in Jayadrath vadh parva.

Similarly, in MB, there's no mention of Balarama wanting Subhadra for Duryodhan. In SB, it's mentioned that he was thinking about it, but nothing more.

Besides, even within MB itself, there are numerous contradictions, so expecting MB and SB to be compatible w/ each other is expecting too much