~| Whatever you want to argue about |~ - Page 63

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Where? There is no citation which mentiona Krishna in MBh before swayamvar.

Pandavas got help from Vidura during lac house. A year later, they got help from Vyasa. They did not contact Krishna at any point.

Chiillii gave the citation from Mahabharata when Bheem goes for training under Bheem immidiately after Yudhishtir's coronation

I know of the CE part. That is one of the most ridiculous ommisions. Because there entire section of advanced training is removed.not just bhima part.

Yudhishtir's coronation as crown prince is also not mentioned in CE also conquest of abhira and sauvira by Arjuna or Drona giving him brahmashira or sahadev being trained by brihaspati.

If we presume.bhima did not get trained then we also have to presume yudhishtir was never coronated crown prince and arjun never recived brahmashira from drona. Making karna go to parshuram quiet unnecessary

However it says Bhima has become extremely strong and dhananjaya extremely skilled. That cannot happen without more training as Duryodhan matched Bhima in rangabhoomi. And karna also repeated exactly what arjun did before their argument started and sun set.

But if krishna was able to recognise pandavas having met them just once or twice why didn't duryodhan and co recognise them even though duryodhan had spent better part of his childhood with pandavas. I think krishna recognising them has got more to do with either his spy network or vyasa informing him to look out for pandavas in the Swamyvaar considering it was vyasa who told pandu putras to go to Krishnaa s Swamyvaar.

Structuring of CE was done very carefully by BORI.

Each Parva was collated from at least 10 manuscripts, some as much as 60. Acc to Sukthankar's prologmena, there are at least 237 (at the time) Adi Parva manuscripts. He specifically states Nilakantha version was used from where we have KMG), but it is one of the later versions of MBh. The oldest was Nepali from 11th century. Nilakantha lived in latter half of 17th century. Sarada version was taken as the norm for Adi Parva. Omissions in Sarada version which were seen in other versions were actually stated to be NOT omissions at all. They were interpolations in later texts.

ie, whatever BORI decided were interpolations were left out.

If they left out the part about Bheema going to Balram and Yudhishtira being crowned yuvraaj, it is most likely because those were thought to be interpolations.

Actually, it does explain quite a lot of later events.

1. Why Yudhishtira had no wife.

2. Why Bheeshma doesn't demand Yudhishtira be reinstated as crown prince. Instead the patriarch states both sides have equal rights.

Concluding a treaty with those heroes, let half the land be given unto them. This is without doubt, the paternal kingdom of those foremost ones of the Kuru race. And, O Duryodhana, like thee who lookest upon this kingdom as thy paternal property, the Pandavas also look upon it as their paternal possession. If the renowned sons of Pandu obtain not the kingdom, how can it be thine, or that of any other descendant of the Bharata race? If thou regardest thyself as one that hath lawfully come into the possession of the kingdom, I think they also may be regarded to have lawfully come into the possession of this kingdom before thee. Give them half the kingdom quietly.

3. Why Panchal/Pandavas don't object to Yudhishtira not being reinstated.

Like Gandhari's 2-year pregnancy to justify Yudhishtira wanting half the kingdom, the coronation section was also likely added.

Anyway, the point of all that was to say if CE didn't include it, Bheema likely didn't go to Dwaraka to learn from Balram at that point. It was an interpolation.

I don't see what that has to do with Suyodhana and Bheema wouldn't have matched in rang bhoomi. They were both Drona's students. The Karna-Arjuna argument in rang bhoomi mentioned none of Arjuna's specific feats (in CE). And in any case, rang bhoomi was chronologically prior to guru dakshina war.

OFF TOPIC: I also saw that prologmena calls Subhadrahran the rape of Subhadra. It says southern recension beautified it and said Arjuna and Subhadra had a secret wedding, an insertion only to legitimize Abhimanyu as he was the grandfather of Janmejaya.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

OFF TOPIC: I also saw that prologmena calls Subhadrahran the rape of Subhadra. It says southern recension beautified it and said Arjuna and Subhadra had a secret wedding, an insertion only to legitimize Abhimanyu as he was the grandfather of Janmejaya.

Does this make sense though? Why would they make child out of their wedlock n his children get their inheritance

I don't think they gave anything to the children Iravan or Ghatochkach

Mahabharata Wikipedia states that the oldest existing manuscript was complied between 300BC to 300AD which is this manuscript?? I guess we could consider this one to be the most authentic

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Mahabharata Wikipedia states that the oldest existing manuscript was complied between 300BC to 300AD which is this manuscript?? I guess we could consider this one to be the most authentic

Spitzer. It's in fragments

Do you think Drona giving Arjuna brahmashira to be an interpolation as well, as that also gets omitted here.

It is given as the reason why karna went to parshuram by Narada in Santi Parva

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Do you think Drona giving Arjuna brahmashira to be an interpolation as well, as that also gets omitted here.

It is given as the reason why karna went to parshuram by Narada in Santi Parva

I really haven't paid much attention to weapons, TBH 😆. Maybe Bheema did go to Dwaraka. But Yudhishtira not being yuvraj would explain so many things.

Or maybe I'm finding reasons to suggest Yudhishtira wasn't legit.