What changes would have happened had Duryodhan won the war - Page 2

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Not exactly. Vaishampayana did not witness the events, Vyasa did. Sometimes, he simply heard of the events.

Vyasa DID narrate it to his son, Suka, and 4 of his disciples, including Vaishampayana.

Vaishampayana narrated it to Janmejaya as only partly a Q & A session. A huge chunk of it was merely "tell me the story." He narrated what Vyasa narrated to him.

Ugrasravas Sauti then narrated the narration to the rishis.

I didn't say that V witnessed the event

I am saying that Mahabharata Poem is about event of storytelling between Janmejaya and V, the poem is written describing this particular event because Janmejaya and V are part of the poem.

A fought B

C told the story of A fighting B to D

D Tells the story to E

What we have is not A fighting B, rather we read the event where D is narrating this story to E and we are reading it after inclusion of years of interpolation, so we can't be sure if D -----> E is correct or not

We can't say that's how Vyasa wrote the Mahabharata, we are reading now, we don't know how Vyasa wrote it to analyze it on basis of his writing style, we know how V narrated it to Janmejaya and he is not the writer

Vyasa can't be involved in lives of Pandavas to an extent where he knows everything they did, add Kauravas, Panchal, Yadavas too

My POV is that the story was written around winners of the war

Originally posted by: NoraSM

I didn't say that V witnessed the event

I am saying that Mahabharata Poem is about event of storytelling between Janmejaya and V, the poem is written describing this particular event because Janmejaya and V are part of the poem.

A fought B

C told the story of A fighting B to D

D Tells the story to E

What we have is not A fighting B, rather we read the event where D is narrating this story to E and we are reading it after inclusion of years of interpolation, so we can't be sure if D -----> E is correct or not

We can't say that's how Vyasa wrote the Mahabharata, we are reading now, we don't know how Vyasa wrote it to analyze it on basis of his writing style, we know how V narrated it to Janmejaya and he is not the writer

Vyasa can't be involved in lives of Pandavas to an extent where he knows everything they did, add Kauravas, Panchal, Yadavas too

My POV is that the story was written around winners of the war

Leaving aside all the interpolations, Vaishampayana only narrated what Vyasa told him. So in essence, what Parikshit heard IS Vyasa's story.

As for Vaishampayana adding stuff, he surely did since Parikshit was Arjuna's descendant. But the core story was Vyasa's.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

We have been discussing for long that a lot of importance has been given to Arjun because Janamejay was the one to hear about the story from Vaishampayan.

This makes me feel what would have been the narrative of Vaishampayan, had Duryodhan won the war, and instead of Janamejay, Lakshman's son or grandson would have been listening this story?

I have a feeling that Jaya that was written by Vyas would have been more a documentation of events with not much importance to any character or their personal lives, that happened in the Vaishampayan narration.

But had Lakshman's son/grandson been hearing the story, would Vaishampayan have tried to conceal/omit the wrong doings and criminal acts of Duryodhan in his narration?? Would he have tried to justify those criminal acts? Would he make a statement like since Duryodhan was right therefore the greats like Bheeshm and Dronacharya and most of the Indian states supported them?? While the evil Pandavas only got the support from their in laws and evils like the son of evil Jarasangh, evil Shishupal etc.?

Just wanted your views on this...

First of all, if Duryodhan had won the war, I'm assuming that all the Pandavas - not just Bhima and Arjun - would have been dead at the end. Probably slain in battle. Along w/ all their sons.

Then the question would have arisen about the casualties on the Kaurava side. May not have been much: w/ Bheeshma, Drona, Kripa, Ashwatthama, Bhurishrava, Shalya, Bhagadatta, Jayadrath, Susharma, Alambusha around, assuming that Krishna didn't salvage the Pandavas w/ various stratagems on how to kill them, chances are that the Pandavas would have been done in within the first 10 days, w/o Karna even entering. W/o anybody from the Kaurava side, except perhaps Alambusha, dying.

If Duryodhan's descendant inherited the throne, I wonder what the occasion would have been to get to do the yagna to destroy the Nagas. But assuming that there did arise the occasion for Vyasa's disciples to narrate the story, I think the focus would have shifted as follows:

• Duryodhan being an ausara son to Dhritarashtra and Gandhari, as opposed to the Pandavas who were kshetrajya sons of Pandu
• Duryodhan becoming yuvraj of Hastinapur after the Pandavas disappeared in a fire in the house of lac
• Pandavas getting Indraprastha after marriage to Draupadi
• Pandava marriages to the daughter of Jarasandha and sister of Sishupala
• Pandavas losing Indraprastha in the game of dice, and being exiled to the forest (it may have edited out the vastraharan and other unsavory details)
• Then the 13 years would have focused more on Duryodhan's reign (which actually the citizens of Hastinapur fondly remember when Dhritarashtra retired to the forest), until the war
• May have covered Krishna's visit w/o the viraatroop
• May probably have left out the fact about Karna being born to Kunti (incidentally, if the Pandavas were gonna die, Indra would have known about it in advance, in which case, would he have bothered to deprive Karna of his kavach-kundalas?)
• Would have covered the war and the destruction of the Pandavas
• Duryodhan would have been coronated after the war, and his rule would have been covered
• All the kingdoms of Pandava allies - Panchala, Matsya, Mathura, Magadha, Chedi, Kekaya, Srinjaya, et al would have all gone to Duryodhan's brothers to start kingdoms of their own. Not sure where they'd have gotten 100 kingdoms
• Karna would have started a dynasty at Anga
  
• Gandhari wouldn't have cursed Krishna, but the rishis still would have, in which case, when Dwarka got destroyed, all the Yadavas would simply have drowned. It would have been more like the end of Ayodhya after Rama's reign, when everyone took jaal samadhi. There may or may not have been a fratricide
• Duryodhan and his brothers would have probably died of boredom
  

Originally posted by: Chiillii

If Duryodhan had won the war, the biggest change that would have happened was Krishna would be a clever human, not a Vishnu Incarnation. Arjun would not be a Nara Incarnation. He may have been son of Indra, just to show Duryodhan defeating the son of a Deva.

Glorification of Krishna and Arjun as Nara Narayana happened because their descendents won and survived to create the hype and propaganda around them.

The divinity of ancestor gives a King a legitimacy to rule, specially when the king himself is inferior or his claim on the throne weak.

We have seen these in every civilization. Egyptian Pharaoh's claimed themselves to be either Horus or Isis

Alexander claimed to be son of Zeus

Even today Thai kings are worshipped as divine.

Even royal families in India try to trace their origin to one or the other God to buttress their claim

While Pandavas themselves or Krishna were remarkable men themselves their descendents Parikshit or Vajra were going up against resurgent Magadha and other kingdoms.

In the Puranas itself, every King who had a substantial victory or remarkable reign either himself becomes an Avatar of Vishnu or becomes Vishnu's special devotee for whom he does some remarkable Leela, for his descendents

Tu Janta Nahin mera baap dada par dada koun hai is a statement we are all familiar with

If Duryodhan had won, this statement would have been made by his descendents.

Who knows Karna may become Narayana and Durydodhan Nara.

Hmmm, they would then have been different Avatars then. Makes some sense.

But I think Krishnaji could have still retained His divinity, since I think the son of Lakshmana would definitely have been given some important states. So the grandfather/great-grandfather of the ruler would have had some importance.

In that case however, Krishna would have wanted the win of Kauravas and hence would have given his entire army to support Kauravas but couldn't Himself directly support him because his sister was married to Pandavas. But maybe the Nara would have been Duryodhan/Suyodhan.

I still don't see the glorification of Karna to divine status because for one his progeny would still not have been at important positions. At max they would have been the rulers of small kingdoms like Anga and Malini which never mattered much to Indian history. He if at the max could have escalated to the level of Bheem a powerful warrior and loyal support nothing more. Ironic as it might seem, but today he is so important because he was the elder brother of righteous Pandavas and someone who supposedly gave up his life for the friendship. He would not have been that important had Kauravas won, in that case he would have simply been the elder brother of the evil Pandavas who was discarded by their evil mother. The kind hearted Duryodhan gave him status and he ended up rejecting his brothers the evil Pandavas to fight for what was right. I think despite being a Kaurav warrior, he got more glorification by Pandavas win than he would have ever got by Kaurav win

Originally posted by: NoraSM

First thing is that, are we considering it a real event? How come Vyasa know so much about these people? Sitting here, I can get news of what's happening in USA but how can I know minute details? Then they didn't have Television

The way everything is described in details, including the agyatvas, It seems like a story, it is possible they wrote the story around real war which took place due to property dispute

If Dury had won, he would not have been the criminal or in the wrong because the whole story and inside information would have been written around the winner

Did I make any sense?

If Vyasa was about to write history, he would have definitely done some research before penning it down.

He wouldn't have just wrote whatever he felt. Meeting the real people who would have been available in those instances. Yes I do agree there could have been some biases in the minds of the sources who might have responded to him, but still the major events could not have been avoided. For example Vyas did mention the KhandavDahan where both the protagonists of Jaya (I agree to Chiilli that the Nara and Narayan angle was added by Vaishampayan or even later, in Vyas' narration they would have been great and pious men) had been completely wrong and killers.

He could alter the inside information to suit the winner, but while writing history the facts couldn't have been altered.

So even if Duryodhan won, Vyas orb even Vaishampayan couldn't have avoided the fact that Duryodhan poisoned Bheem or planned for Lakshagriha and could have definitely not ignored the Dice hall events among others

Just wanted your views, would these be just mentioned and passed on? What justification could have come for these

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Absolutely would have been different. Vaishampayana would have been talking about the Pandavas as tree of wickedness and Krishna would've taken Shakuni's place.😆 But Krishna actually did a lot of the plotting from the Pandava side unlike Shakuni.

But how could they do that is my point? We know that Pandavas were at least fifty times better and less evil than Kauravas or at least Duryodhan.

Do you think that Vaishampayan could have somehow implied that Dusshashan was Dharmavtar?

Originally posted by: Chiillii

One critical evidence that Mahabharata is not a fiction imagined by Vyasa is that. There is not a single verse in the epic where Vyasa enters a charachter's mind

There is not a single verse in any unabridged edition that says this is what this person thought. Any person

There is not even a single verse that says this is what he/she may be thinking

He only quotes a charachter in first person or third person (As in what someone said, or someone heard another person saying)

Or he describes the body language of a charachter in first person or third person (eg. She seemed cheerful, he looked desolate)

If Mahabharata was fiction, like every single fictional story available today, the author would also think for the character.

Pick up any fictional book, English or Hindi, a Tagore story or Munshi Premchand or even Shivaji Sawant, you can even pick up English ones Palace of illusions or Jane Austen or J K Rowling's Harry Potter

The author actually writes what a charachter thinking. Or why they are reacting in a given situation in a particular way

Vyasa never does that. He is actually narrating things he saw or he heard from somebody.

His work does not show him using his imagination or creativity

However Mahabharata is a poem. And a poem is not one if it doesn't have metaphors, similes and hyperbole.

There is also the element of propaganda that may have been forced into by Parikshit, Vajra and their descendents to fortify their claim to the thrones

We have seen that kind of propaganda in Asoka's edicts. But Asoka who was devanampriya really did exist

Very important point raised. It clearly shows that Mahabharata was a big war actually affecting the Indian civilization in some major way. He penned down the information he gathered from everywhere after his research.

For the things uptil return of Pandavas he would have got direct information from his mother and Ambika and Ambalika when they looking l lived with him after having left the palace. For the events that happened later there were people like the servants, guards etc alive to give him first hand information as I said these sources too might have had their biases but the core events would still have been retained

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Yes, and the absence of description of emotional state in many scenes has given rise to a lot of misconceptions.

The conversation between Krishna and Karna is a prime example. Consider that Krishna was returning angry from his diplomatic mission. He divulges Karna's origin and throws in offers which knew were illegitimate. After Karna refuses, what follows is threatfest combined with mockery from Krishna and sarcasm from Karna. That was somehow interpreted as Karna being this mahaan vyakthi who knew he would die and sacrificed himself for his friend. Heck, he himself later says that he cannot let go of his bitterness. But because Vyasa didn't explain the tone, the K-K scene is interpreted as something else.

Well humans have different emotions and different reasons to come up to a decision.

Karna might have had his bitterness but he still could have had some newfound love for his brothers. These two feelings might be counter balancing in his mind and the friendship of Duryodhan gave weight to the Kaurav side support.

Whether or not Karna was a true friend to Duryodhan, Duryodhan was undoubtedly a true friend to Karna which Karna knew and this fact would have made the decision easy for Karna.

Even if Duryodhan didn't matter much to Karna, it wasn't easy to leave his side. Unless you are a very bad person, it's not easy to leave the side of someone who have been your friend for ages, and considers your support as his greatest asset. Your conscience will never allow you. People make it his indebtedness for Duryodhan but no it's very much a human tendency.

The only exaggeration here is that they say that he knew he would die and lose still he supported his friend. That is completely wrong. No one could have predicted the result of the war. Arjun Dhristhdhyum Satyaki and Bheem might have been great warriors but Kaurav side too had equally great warrior support. They were higher in number and Karna himself never considered Arjun better than him

Originally posted by: NoraSM

I didn't say that V witnessed the event

I am saying that Mahabharata Poem is about event of storytelling between Janmejaya and V, the poem is written describing this particular event because Janmejaya and V are part of the poem.

A fought B

C told the story of A fighting B to D

D Tells the story to E

What we have is not A fighting B, rather we read the event where D is narrating this story to E and we are reading it after inclusion of years of interpolation, so we can't be sure if D -----> E is correct or not

We can't say that's how Vyasa wrote the Mahabharata, we are reading now, we don't know how Vyasa wrote it to analyze it on basis of his writing style, we know how V narrated it to Janmejaya and he is not the writer

Vyasa can't be involved in lives of Pandavas to an extent where he knows everything they did, add Kauravas, Panchal, Yadavas too

My POV is that the story was written around winners of the war

Interpolation can not be ruled out. But if we talk about the Vaishampayan narration, it was mostly that he was narrating Jaya Kavya to him, the events were all true, as I said Vyas would definitely had done his research before penning down the narration.

Definitely Vaishampayan added and gave more importance to the stuff which interested Janmayey.

For example if we start saying Mahabharata story to our next generation, they would definitely want us to start from the Kaurav Pandav birth, the events prior to it including Bheeshm's birth and Pratigya or Vichitraveerji's life might not interest them. So it's natural that those parts would be quickly passed on to come to the more important parts. AdiParva is something most of the Mahabharata narration of today wouldn't even find a mention.

But that doesn't mean that the criminal acts of someone could have been ignored. Those definitely had to be mentioned

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Leaving aside all the interpolations, Vaishampayana only narrated what Vyasa told him. So in essence, what Parikshit heard IS Vyasa's story.

As for Vaishampayana adding stuff, he surely did since Parikshit was Arjuna's descendant. But the core story was Vyasa's.

I think you meant Janmayey and not Parikshit