~| Whatever you want to argue about - 2 |~ - Page 45

“O Brahmanas! If Kshatriyas like Karna and Shalya, who are famous in the world, have great strength and are well versed in Dhanur Veda,22 could not string the bow, how can this weakling Brahmana, with no knowledge of weapons, succeed?

CE itself mentions that karna failed.

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

Actually one of the main reason that the sutputra comment is not believe is that in the very next paragraph vyasa says that "radha s son along with other kings failed to string the bow "

And walking round that bow, and bending his head unto that giver of boons--the lord Isana--and remembering Krishna also, he took it up. And that bow which Rukma, Sunitha, Vakra, Radha's son, Duryodhana, Salya, and many other kings accomplished in the science and practice of arms, could not even with great exertion, string

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01191.htm

Rest everything in the two paragraphs are same names of people who participated are same only thing differs is karna s point. So we can still beileve the paragraph without taking in the sutputra comment as kmg itself is confused about that part but not about the rest. Karna failed to string the bow along with others.

Yaar to be fare, Radha poori duniya me ek hi to nhi Rahi hogi. The one who failed could be the son of some other Radha

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Yaar to be fare, Radha poori duniya me ek hi to nhi Rahi hogi. He could be the son of some other Radha

If you read the citation clearly only the name of prominent warrior are mentioned duryodhan radha s son shayla and other kings. If the person mentioned would have been just another king there was no need to specifically highlight him plus CE agree Here -

“O Brahmanas! If Kshatriyas like Karna and Shalya, who are famous in the world, have great strength and are well versed in Dhanur Veda,22 could not string the bow, how can this weakling Brahmana, with no knowledge of weapons, succeed?

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

“O Brahmanas! If Kshatriyas like Karna and Shalya, who are famous in the world, have great strength and are well versed in Dhanur Veda,22 could not string the bow, how can this weakling Brahmana, with no knowledge of weapons, succeed?

CE itself mentions that karna failed.

Obviously Karna failed I don't support the SutaPutra comment at all, it definitely is an interpolation. We are discussing the authenticity of that paragraph of KMG which was removed by BORI

By the way Karna wasn't a Kshatriya right? At least to the world, are we sure this is about the same Karna?

Aside here they discuss that Pandavas were Brahmins, well n good, so why is later Drupad confused if Draupadi has been won by any Shudra or Vaishya??

Confused now

Gotcha games are so tiresome 😆. But since the suthaputra comment was raised:

For argument's sake, let's say we all took a time machine to Panchali swayamvara and heard her say, "na aham varamAyi sUtam."

1. Karna wasn't just a suta, he was a king. Rich, handsome by all accounts, powerful with powerful friends.

2. KRISHNA was a suta. All yadavas were. If Panchali said that, it actually means none of them COULD have participated. Yeah, yeah, no one treated them as sutas, but they were, regardless.

3. It also means Panchali had no problems being BFFs with a suta.

4. Pandavas presented themselves as poor sages. Point to note: sage doesn't mean brahmana. Audience assumed Arjuna was, but there was even a part where Drupada (not being certain it was Arjuna) wondered if the man could be a shudra. So suta not okay, shudra okay?😆 Wow, Panchali was really liberal.

5. I'm going to assume Kunti, being adopted by Kuntibhoja, was considered kshatriya. So that won't count.

6. Let's take the Pandava lineage, shall we? Vyasa's son with kshatriya dasi was called kshatta/kshatri. Ie, VYASA was considered a shudra. HE was the father of Pandu. Vidura, even lower caste, was Yudhishtira's father. Yet Panchali had no problem marrying him.

7. She had no issues considering Abhimanyu, son of a suta woman, as heir.

8. Panchali had no issues with Abhimanyu marrying the daughter of another suta woman.

All of it would mean she didn't want to marry KARNA, the suta king. But she was quite willing to marry an impoverished sage (by appearances) who she didn't even know if he were of a lower caste. Actual king was the biological son of a kshatta/kshatri. Chalo, she might not have known Yudhishtira's parentage. She still completely relied on a suta BFF, a shudra mentor, had a suta woman for a close friend and her son for an heir.

So this would mean she really, really didn't want to marry Karna, the person.😆

But why? Only 2 possibilities 1) His infamy had spread far and wide 2) She knew she was meant to marry someone else.

See, we still arrive back at it was a plan.

Also, guess what I found:

he gods came in their heavenly chariots—the rudras, the adityas, the vasus, the twinAshvins, all the sadhyas and all the maruts, with Yama and the god of wealth9 at theforefront. There also came the daityas, the suparnas,10 the great uragas,11 the devarshis, theguhyakas,12 the charanas,13 Vishvavasu, Narada, Parvata, the chief gandharvas with theapsaras, Halayudha,14 Janardana15 and the chiefs among the Vrishnis and the Andhakas.The chiefs among the Yadus, always devoted to Krishna, were also there, witnessing it. Onseeing the five Pandavas, like elephants in rut that had come to a lake full of lotuses, like afire covered with ashes, the chief of the Yadus16 began to wonder. He told Rama,17 “That isYudhishthira. That is Bhima and that is Jishnu18 and those are the valorous twins.” Glancingat them leisurely, Rama cast a pleased glance at Janardana.‘Biting their lower lips in anger, those other warriors, the sons and grandsons of kings, hadset their eyes, hearts and natures on Krishna. Biting their lips and with faces that were likecopper in colour, they only looked at her.19 On seeing Droupadi, Pritha’s mighty-armed sonsand the brave and great-natured twins were struck with the arrows of the god of love.20 Theplace was full of gods, rishis, gandharvas, suparnas, nagas, asuras and siddhas, pervaded withdivine fragrances and covered with divine garlands. A great roar arose from the drums,21 andthe sounds of the flute, the veena and cymbals echoed. The celestial routes were crowdedwith the heavenly chariots of the gods.‘Then, one after another, those kings exhibited their valour for Krishna. But the bow was sostrong that with all their strength, they could not string it. The firm wood of the bow recoiledand flung those brave rulers of men on the ground. They failed in their desire and could beseen on the ground, miserable and broken in spirit. That firm bow caused them pain andshattered their bracelets and earrings. Having lost hopes of obtaining Krishna, that assemblyof kings was crestfallen. In that assembly, those kings who boasted of noble birth

__________________________

Krishna is mentioned as WITNESSING it, along with Yadavas.

This is from BORI CE

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Obviously Karna failed I don't support the SutaPutra comment at all, it definitely is an interpolation. We are discussing the authenticity of that paragraph of KMG which was removed by BORI

By the way Karna wasn't a Kshatriya right? At least to the world, are we sure this is about the same Karna?

Aside here they discuss that Pandavas were Brahmins, well n good, so why is later Drupad confused if Draupadi has been won by any Shudra or Vaishya??

Confused now

Karna was a king right?? Plus there is nothing in the entire text there was any other prominent king karna apart from the duryodhan s best friend. So i would like to believe that this citation mention radha s beloved son

About the authenticity all i am saying is if you check the next verse in both kmg and CE both mentions it and both mentions karna failing. Plus even the name of the king participating is same. Only part CE remove is the sutputra part.which is a later interpolation.

Can anyone tell me what is the reason that Krishna recognise pandavas followed them to their hut and barged in for a quick chit chat while duryodhan and gang could not even after having spend most of their lives with them. ?? Doesn't this means that somebody gave a heads up to krishna that Pandavas are going to present their in guise of sage. And to look out for them

And what kind of father allows an unknown sage to take his still unmarried daughter with him into the forest ?? again Heads up for arjuna/pandavas

And what kind of brother having listened to everything that drishtdyum did runs back to his father to inform him about it instead of going and being their for his sister . Heads up to go on see if everything was going as per the plan?? Anyone??

And last but not the least panchali herself.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

The Suta putra comment is exactly in the same paragraph where the list of people who participated in the competition is mentioned. The entire paragraph iw removed by BORI. If we need to believe that the list is true then definitely the SutaPutra comment needs to be deemed true as well something we all consider an interpolation

@Nora Vyas himself was a part of the plan as we could understand, why do you feel he would openly admit and document some sort of foul play from his end? He would definitely try to hide it.

History is written by the winners, the losers have to bear the burnt of even the things they didn't do.

Do you really feel Pandavas wouldn't have ever plotted against Kauravas? Do you really feel Hidimba was actually happy getting into relationship with the murderer of her brother? These things are just hidden for the winners.

Had Duryodhan won, the Gandharva instance would have been called consensual one and Bheem Hidimba forced.

And here the winner is actually the author of text

See, the theory has to have a base, right? If Vyasa arranged it WITH Drupad then why did Drupad, Vyasa and Krishna left such a HUGE plan up to a chance of Arjuna winning? I like Arjuna but wasn't he a young man at this point? Yes, He won but did they really believe that everyone else will fail? Would you take a chance like this? Is it logical?

Even if I believe that they were stupid enough to leave something huge as this up to a chance of Arjuna winning, then why Arjuna? They could have done this for Yudi, some competition he could have won, don't you think Drupad would want his son in law to get them fame, why Arjuna should get fame? Don't you think Yudi winning such a huge competition would actually put him on the map as a better King than Duryodhan?

Aside 9 citations are there, do you really think Drupad and Yudi were involved in this plan together?

If you read the list, Jarasandh lost too

Then king Jarasandha endued with great strength and powers, approaching the bow stood there for some moment, fixed and motionless like a mountain. Tossed by the bow, he too fell upon his knees on the ground, and rising up, the monarch left the amphitheatre for (returning to) his kingdom

I had actually read this during the discussion about Jarasandh, but didn't post it because of Sutaputra comment, which was removed by BORI CE

I would like to believe Arjuna was stronger than Jarasandh, but the fact remains that BORI CE removed it

Everyone present there is called "King" , if one believes that Yadavas didn't participate because they weren't "Kings" then the reason of their participation is their NOT BEING KINGS, rather than Yadavas being there because Draupadi was their daughter, why did Dristadumya mention them in the list of people who came there to participate?

Drupad always mentioned Arjuna and he put a Swayamvar he could win, is a fact

If there was a plan then text supports @Chilli's theory because Drupad was talking about Arjuna only, do read it, I have provided the text

Yudi, Vyasa and Drupad weren't together in this plan, their conversation is clear enough, but everything which doesn't support that particular theory is metaphor or interpolation, I can't help it

I am stopping here, Y'all have kept me sane/insane during lockdown, thank you for the discussion, I am sorry if I sound rude

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

That's not the point. The stories put were definitely fictionally with lots of hyberbole. But my Point was that how did they bring such an important scientific theory in their story (fictional story) that if you leave earth in high speed the time will pass slowly for you.

This principle of time dilation was not discovered till the early 20th century.

To make such scientifically accurate story you need to at least have the basic knowledge of these Scientific theories

People in the past did have knowledge and had a scientific temper there is no doubt about that. But they were not scientifically advanced.

Let me give you an example of the same time dilation theory.

Christopher Nolan made the movie Interstellar today. Nicely using the concept of time dilation to tell a fictional story in a movie.

Christopher Nolan understands the science behind Time Dilation and explains the concept beautifully in a story about a father and a daughter.

But has anyone actually gone into space today and done what happens in the movie.

No right.

So Vyasa picked up a time dilation theory, incorporated it in his story about Revati. It doesnt make it real..

Time dilation as a concept was understood by people in the past and in the present on the basis of solar system itself.

All planets that revolve around the sun have a speed based on their distance from the sun.

1 year on earth is 365 1/4 day. But on mercury 1 year is 88 days. On Jupiter it is 12 years but saturn 29 years.

So if someone lived on Mercury they would have completed 4 years compared to a person who has lived on earth would have completed only 1 year.

Black hole is opposite of a Sun it absorbs light and heat instead of giving it off. So object closer to it will go slower compared to objects far from it. So by the time an object completes 1 year going around it. Another object far from it would have completed several years.

This is a basic principle some rishi would have worked on. Vyasa was compiling all the scriptural and scientific material of the time.

He would have found this interesting and used it for revati's story

Kakudmi of Anarta had a barren patch of land that he was king of. What we know today as Rann of Kutch. No one wanted to live there so everyone left him. His daughter lived with him. Did not marry for lack of groom or because she wanted to be with her father

The few instances that show revati. Show her as crass, outspoken, drunk and with an attitude taller than her. Not the docile, cultured sophisticated princess expectation that people may have had. Hence Raivata may not be getting a royal groom for her.

Or Raivata may have been looking for Ghar jamai and dahej mein sasural as no one wanted to live in his land.

Krishna needed land to settle his people. The marriage was arranged with Balram. And he apparently tamed the shrew. Krishna made Dwarka a trading hub, using Vasudev expertise as a trader. Traders dont rely on cattle grazing or agriculture to make money.

Even today Gujaratis are shrewd businessmen who can make money out of anything.

Look at Dhirubai ambani who started with a small sum of money he got as dowry for marrying an older kokilaben. Today we have Reliance and Jio.

Krishna/Vasudev/Balram did that with the dowry recieved from Revati and Satyabhama