Saif : " we will justify abduction of Sita and war with ram" - Page 10

Originally posted by: .Lonewalker.

Umm...Upa Pandavas were not children. They were all born well before the 13 years exile & were more or less in the similar age group as Abhimanyu. All of them participated in the War, which implies they were capable warriors by the time the war happened.

I did not say Krishna actively murdered them or plotted their murder. That was destiny unfolding into what it's meant to be. Krishna simply did not intervene. There are difference between the two. He made sure to punish Asshwatthama for this heinous crime. But him being the deity, he could have stopped it if he wished that. Gandhari cursed him stating the same & Krishna accepted her curse with grace.

@Bold : Good & bad are subjective terms. What looks unrighteous to you, might look righteous to someone else. Didn't Duryodhana complain that they were defeated unrighteously & Pandavas were the evil gang? From his pov he was not wrong. All the Kaurava Maharathis were killed through tricky measures & Duryodhana himself was brought down unrighteously. But we don't find these unrighteous because it helped achieve the greater good. Handling something of this level & yet being goody 2 shoes is not possible simultaneously. Krishna in no way will be "demon God" in the Yadava bloodline ruling theory because Krishna did not seek to put Yadava blood on the throne simply to make "his clan" dominant. It was not for his personal pleasure. Personal agenda, personal pleasure....or putting your own before others....Krishna was above of all these mortal stuffs. His only aim was to right a wrong that happened long ago. Yayati cursing Yadu & putting Puru on throne was unfair & that's how it all started. By putting Pariskhit on throne, Krishna seeked to correct that. He did not do it for any personal satisfaction.

Your opinion might differ, but that necessarily does not nullify this explanation of the course of events. Different opinions can exist. Nothing is the ultimate truth.

Fact remains that there is nothing in the text that Suggest that krishna was aiming for Yadava dominance that is just a theory which i do not believe.

I believe in krishna s divinity and panchali s divinity but i do not believe that arjuna was nar.

Krishna was naryan and panchali was sri and more than anything they were good people somehow arjuna was never able to come into same category he was lacked shot.

I will respectfully sing out here.

Originally posted by: Mahisa22

Eklavya did not steal any secrets. What happened to him was a caste crime, as simple as that. No need to whitewash it.

If you're interested, I can give you links to texts to show Eklavya was Krishna's first cousin by birth who was adopted by a Nishada king allied with Jarasandha.

Kuru clan and Jarasandha were enemies

He went to Drona and when rejected, listened in to get the info any way.

In modern parlance, that's called espionage.

Considering that, Eklavya, a YADAVA adopted by a Nishada king, got away pretty lightly.

Originally posted by: Mahisa22

Eklavya did not steal any secrets. What happened to him was a caste crime, as simple as that. No need to whitewash it.

As HearMeRoar said, Eklavya's act would be termed an espionage in today's times.

Drona, a teacher employed by the Kurus of Hastinapura, couldn't commit treachery by imparting knowledge to the enemy of Kurus. No matter what propaganda articles claim, there was no caste angle.

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

Fact remains that there is nothing in the text that Suggest that krishna was aiming for Yadava dominance that is just a theory which i do not believe.

I believe in krishna s divinity and panchali s divinity but i do not believe that arjuna was nar.

Krishna was naryan and panchali was sri and more than anything they were good people somehow arjuna was never able to come into same category he was lacked shot.

I will respectfully sing out here.

That's a very selective belief you have there 😆 It's okay. You are entitled to your opinion 😊

But don't make me admit that they are "facts". That's all I ask for.
Peace 😊 Hopefully no hard feelings sustained 😳

Originally posted by: .Lonewalker.

That's a very selective belief you have there 😆 It's okay. You are entitled to your opinion 😊

But don't make me admit that they are "facts". That's all I ask for.
Peace 😊 Hopefully no hard feelings sustained 😳

Krishna not aiming for yadava dominance is a "fact" about divinity then there is nothing to proof for or against it is based on belief it was not a fact like not in literal sense everything is on belief. I am not going to beileve in someone s divinity just for the heck of it the krishna Krishnaa duo actively proof themselves to he divine supreme beings who have greater ideas arjuna never doe anything of that sort.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

If you're interested, I can give you links to texts to show Eklavya was Krishna's first cousin by birth who was adopted by a Nishada king allied with Jarasandha.

Kuru clan and Jarasandha were enemies

He went to Drona and when rejected, listened in to get the info any way.

In modern parlance, that's called espionage.

Considering that, Eklavya, a YADAVA adopted by a Nishada king, got away pretty lightly.

Ekalavya was interested in knowledge, not espionage. He revered Dronacharya so much that he built a mud statue of him and worshipped it. His intentions are pretty clear to anybody who reads the text, and Dronacharya clearly states he did it because he didn't want anybody to surpass Arjuna.

Also, if his aim was espionage, then why would he oblige Dronacharya and cut off his finger? That's the biggest loophole right there in this theory made up by whomever. 😆

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Caste crime?

As HearMeRoar said, Eklavya's act would be termed an espionage in today's times.

Drona, a teacher employed by the Kurus of Hastinapura, couldn't commit treachery by imparting knowledge to the enemy of Kurus. No matter what propaganda articles claim, there was no caste angle.

Propaganda articles? This story has been known to GENERATIONS in its present form. Heck, we grew up reading it in our school textbooks. Dronacharya refused to teach Ekalavya precisely because he was an adopted Nishad, which was a tribal caste considered an outcast in general society back then.

The justifications you are offering sound more like propaganda made up by upper caste apologists to whitewash Dronacharya.

Originally posted by: Mahisa22

Propaganda articles? This story has been known to GENERATIONS in its present form. Heck, we grew up reading it in our school textbooks. Dronacharya refused to teach Ekalavya precisely because he was an adopted Nishad, which was a tribal caste considered an outcast in general society back then.

The justifications you are offering sound more like propaganda made up by upper caste apologists to whitewash Dronacharya.

whatever story you read or hear are not necessarirly true for ex karna s usually presented as poor he but text proves that he was an eve teaser

drau s sutputra comment s very famous but thats not true either text clearly says he lost

drau s andhe ka putra comment s also famous but the original text does not mentions that at all

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

whatever story you read or hear are not necessarirly true for ex karna s usually presented as poor he but text proves that he was an eve teaser

drau s sutputra comment s very famous but thats not true either text clearly says he lost

drau s andhe ka putra comment s also famous but the original text does not mentions that at all

Is there any original text where it is explicitly mentioned that Ekalavya wanted to steal military secrets and not interested in just knowledge? If yes, then please do show me. Also why did he cut off his finger if that was the case? Shouldn't spies do their work and try to escape?

The story of Ekalvya is known through generations, it's not something invented by any serial. Also, Mahabharat's beauty lies in the fact that all characters are grey or dark, so its futile to try to whitewash Dronacharya.

Originally posted by: .Lonewalker.

@Bold : Well... I do 😆 I am a firm believer of the Divine interventions & Avatars. So it's obvious your & my opinions will differ. That's okay.

@Italic : Well...if you separate the technicalities of the terms "protagonist" & "hero" like that, then maybe you are right. But even then, to me the Pandavas collectively (at least the first 3) along with Shri Krishna are the Protagonists. If you take away Krishna & Arjuna even then the story will stand still. Draupadi's swayamvar will be a totally pointless exercise as no one will win there....without Krishna - Arjuna & the divine interventions, parts like the Khandava Dahana, Arjuna visiting Indralok & collecting weapons, Arjuna's exile & the marriage with Subhadra etc wouldn't have taken place. Kurukshetra wouldn't have been the same without the Krishna - Arjuna duo. The outcome will be very different. Krishna & his grand schemes are the main driving force of Mahabharata. Honestly Yudhistira rarely took key decisions himself. It was mostly Krishna's decisions & Yudhistira agreeing to it. Even if you do not wish to give Arjuna the status of Protagonist, you cannot exclude Krishna. Without Krishna there wouldn't have been any Mahabharat & Yudhistira would have just spent his whole life in exile.

@ Red : I am fully aware of that 😆 By quoting that I didn't mean that this sole dialogue proves my point. I posted that because that was from Krishna himself. But that's not the sole mention of Arjuna being Nara. Lord Shiva, Parashurama & even Vyasa himself said so. Even Bhisma knew it. One or 2 statements can be ignored. Not all these. Especially the ones coming from Vyasa.

Then Parashara’s son spoke to Yudhishthira alone and that eloquent of speakers told him words of grave import. “O supreme among those of the Bharata lineage! The time for you to regain your fortune will come. Partha Dhananjaya will overcome the enemies in battle. Accept from me this knowledge known as pratismriti, as I recount it to you. It is success personified. On receiving it from you, the mighty-armed Arjuna will be successful. O Pandava! For the sake of weapons, he must go to the great Indra, Rudra, Varuna, the lord of riches and Dharmaraja. Because of his austerities and valour, he has the power to see the gods. He is an immensely energetic rishi. He is the ancient, eternal and everlasting god who is Narayana’s companion and a part of Vishnu. When he has obtained weapons from Indra, Rudra and the Lokapalas, the mighty-armed one will perform great deeds……”

• Source - Section Thirty Seven : Markandeya Samasya Parva (Vivek Debroy's translation)

No one knows the MB characters better than Vyasa. If we are questioning him, then there's no point in reading & discussing Mahabharata itself.

@LW, UNTIL end of exile, all of Krishna and Arjuna's moves were those dictated by Vyasa, the character (as opposed to the poet).

If not them, one of the others would've sufficed, and story wouldn't change an iota. Bheem could easily win a mace contest for swayamvara. In fact, in Indonesian MBh, he does. Bheema or Yudhishtira could marry Subhadra.

Hero is one who does heroic deeds, not the main character. Arjuna was a hero in the story. So was Krishna. So was Bheema. So was Panchali.

Yudhishtira most definitely was not a hero.

But his birth before Suyodhana started the plot of core MBh. Then, he made decisions which moved the plot. The lac garh, the decision to attend swayamavara, the decision on ployandry (though it was on Vyasa's advice), the decision to build an empire, do the yagya, go to the dice hall, play the second game, prep for war on Vyasa's advice, etc. etc.

He is the main character.

2. Selectively quoting Krishna is done a lot. If we unquestioningly accept Krishna's words as literal and not hyperbole, following that logic, Arjuna was also impotent as per Krishna. A fool, too, IIRC from war parvas.

Don't get me wrong. I think Krishna was giving his buddy the carrot and stick treatment in both cases.

3. Vyasa was also a poet who wrote in anustubh meter and used plenty of metaphors in writing. Panchali cannot be borne of fire. That's just biologically impossible. She most likely belonged to the Angirasa clan. Yudhishtira was fathered by Vidura as is stated by Vyasa after war. Akshaya Patra means they provided food for everyone who visited, and Panchali ate last. Putana was actually a childhood pox which is in fact stated in MBh itself.

None of this is questioning Vyasa. It's about understanding that MBh is a poem.