Saif : " we will justify abduction of Sita and war with ram" - Page 16

Amazing how people aren't able to see beyond grandma's tales and fan fictions to the pure politics which informed the actions in MBh.😆

I think the best reaction I ever got was when i informed someone Karna's kingdom was the hub of child sex trafficking in Aryavarta. I mean, this is the dude lauded as the hero by some.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Amazing how people aren't able to see beyond grandma's tales and fan fictions to the pure politics which informed the actions in MBh.😆

I think the best reaction I ever got was when i informed someone Karna's kingdom was the hub of child sex trafficking in Aryavarta. I mean, this is the dude lauded as the hero by some.

Grandma's tales? You mean the actual texts which mention caste as the FOCUS of Drona's actions? The same tale which ALL analysts have contended was a tale of caste injustice? Adding your own spin to what is actually written is most welcome, but here you're creating a parallel Mahabharata.

Please do some reading. Eklavya's story has loads of scholastic research on it and each and every one has upheld it as a tale of caste injustice. What YOU'RE peddling here, is, however, a fan-fiction and whitewashing abhiyaan probably started by some Quora theorist. 😆 This forum loves such theories peddled by Quora, whether on Katrina or the Mahabharat.

Karna is a different story, yes. He was a massive d*ck. But Ekalavya's story and interpretation stands.

Repeating:

If Drona intended to safeguard secrets then why mention Eklavya's caste at all? And why did Drona mention caste as the reason for rejecting him? Why not mention the "real" reason? The text has an EMPHASIS on the caste and low-born angle. This makes the intention of the text doubly clear. If Drona was so worried about military secrets, then that would've been the focus of the text. Simple common sense.

No refutation will be done, I know.

Wow Saif sure is desperate for attention these days

Originally posted by: Mahisa22

Grandma's tales? You mean the actual texts which mention caste as the FOCUS of Drona's actions? The same tale which ALL analysts have contended was a tale of caste injustice? Adding your own spin to what is actually written is most welcome, but here you're creating a parallel Mahabharata.

Please do some reading. Eklavya's story has loads of scholastic research on it and each and every one has upheld it as a tale of caste injustice. What YOU'RE peddling here, is, however, a fan-fiction and whitewashing abhiyaan probably started by some Quora theorist. 😆 This forum loves such theories peddled by Quora, whether on Katrina or the Mahabharat.

Karna is a different story, yes. He was a massive d*ck. But Ekalavya's story and interpretation stands.

From Harivamsa:

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61937/pg61937.pdf?session_id=9a402fcd656d570b0f72cf12bf16291c52b4a91a

...Kroushthu’s thirdson Devamidusha begat on Ashmaki a son by name Shura. He begat ten sons onhis Bhoja queen (15–17). Amongst them the mighty armed Vasudeva, surnamed Anākadunduvi was born first. A

...

.Then were born in order Devabhāga, Devashravā, Anādrishti, Kanavaka, Vatsavān, Grinjima, Shyāma, Shamika and Gandusha. These were the ten sons ofShura. Besides he had five beautiful daughters, namely Prithukirti, Prithu, Shrātadevā, Shrutashravā and Rājādhidevi. Every one of them gave birth to heroicsons. O descendant of Kuru, the king Kunti wanted Prithā (21–23).

...

Pāndu marriedher (26–27).

...

Devashravā begat a son by name Shatrughna (32). Devashravā’sson Ekalavya was brought up by Nishādas⁶⁰ and was accordingly called Naishādi(33).

Let Ansumāna’s heroic sonKaitaveya, Uluka, Ekalavya, Dridaksha, Jayadratha, ever observant of Kshatriyaduties, Uttamoujā, Shālwa, the king of Kerala, Koushika, Vāmadeva, the king ofVidishā and powerful Sukeshi get upon the mountain from the east and rive itas the wind dissipates the clouds (34–36). Myself, Darada and the powerful kingof Chedi, shall rive the western side of the mountain (37). In this way let themountain be beseiged completely on all sides by our men and entertain a terriblefright as from the fall of a thunder-bolt (38). Let the holders of clubs with clubs,Parigha-holders with Parighas and other warriors with diverse other weaponsrend this foremost of mountains (39). O ye kings, you shall have, even to day tolevel this mountain abounding in high, uneven and dangerous rocks” (40).As the oceans lie encircling the earth, so those kings, at the command ofJarāsandha, stood encircling the mount Gomanta (

Mahabharata quote I already gave you.

Vishnu Purana is link is showing bad gateway, so you'll have to look it up later. But it says Ekalavya attacked Yadavas after Jarasandha's death and was killed by Krishna.

Eklavya was 1st cousin to both Krishna and Pandavas. He was adopted by a nishada king (Hiranyadhanus) much the same as Kunti was adopted by Kuntibhoj. Yadavas were technically sutas. In fact, Shura married a naga woman and got those 10 sons, so Vasudev and Krishna were quite low caste. Pritha/Kunti was adopted by a kshatriya and Eklavya by a nishada.

Most kings were forced to ally with Jarasandha against Krishna. But once Krishna established Dwaraka, sides started forming. Eklavya and family chose to stay with Jarasandha.

If you have this info and choose to believe Eklavya going to Drona's ashram was a matter of a simple thirst for knowledge and the punishment meted out was caste-based, so be it.

_____________

FGS, I don't even like Drona because he was a massively problematic character. FYI. I'm told (haven't verified independently) that in one of the puranas he was married prior to Kripi and had boy and girl twins. When marriage proposal from Hastinapuri came (Kripi and Kripa were Shanthanu's adopted children), Drona ditched his wife and kids. These twins (boy and girl) were adopted by his old buddy, Drupada.

Now, the kids are not named, but it doesn't take a genius to extrapolate who they were.

So imagine the dice hall.

Drona was so beholden to Hastinapuri that he was willing to watch mutely while his biological daughter was sexually assaulted and threatened with gang rape.

Now, this may be later interpolation, but fact remains he didn't speak up against Karna planning murder when he bluntly said he wanted Brahmashira to kill Arjuna. Drona was likely making sure he didn't piss off Suyodhana. Playing both sides.

He watched mutely while a woman was sexually assaulted (be it daughter or not)

He was the one who suggested to Karna that they cut off Arbhimanyu's bow from behind.

I find Drona a stain on the label of teacher, but in the Eklavya matter, he didn't do anything wrong.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

😆 Dear lord. You really have no idea.

From Harivamsa:

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61937/pg61937.pdf?session_id=9a402fcd656d570b0f72cf12bf16291c52b4a91a

...Kroushthu’s thirdson Devamidusha begat on Ashmaki a son by name Shura. He begat ten sons onhis Bhoja queen (15–17). Amongst them the mighty armed Vasudeva, surnamed Anākadunduvi was born first. A

...

.Then were born in order Devabhāga, Devashravā, Anādrishti, Kanavaka, Vatsavān, Grinjima, Shyāma, Shamika and Gandusha. These were the ten sons ofShura. Besides he had five beautiful daughters, namely Prithukirti, Prithu, Shrātadevā, Shrutashravā and Rājādhidevi. Every one of them gave birth to heroicsons. O descendant of Kuru, the king Kunti wanted Prithā (21–23).

...

Pāndu marriedher (26–27).

...

Devashravā begat a son by name Shatrughna (32). Devashravā’sson Ekalavya was brought up by Nishādas⁶⁰ and was accordingly called Naishādi(33).

Let Ansumāna’s heroic sonKaitaveya, Uluka, Ekalavya, Dridaksha, Jayadratha, ever observant of Kshatriyaduties, Uttamoujā, Shālwa, the king of Kerala, Koushika, Vāmadeva, the king ofVidishā and powerful Sukeshi get upon the mountain from the east and rive itas the wind dissipates the clouds (34–36). Myself, Darada and the powerful kingof Chedi, shall rive the western side of the mountain (37). In this way let themountain be beseiged completely on all sides by our men and entertain a terriblefright as from the fall of a thunder-bolt (38). Let the holders of clubs with clubs,Parigha-holders with Parighas and other warriors with diverse other weaponsrend this foremost of mountains (39). O ye kings, you shall have, even to day tolevel this mountain abounding in high, uneven and dangerous rocks” (40).As the oceans lie encircling the earth, so those kings, at the command ofJarāsandha, stood encircling the mount Gomanta (

Mahabharata quote I already gave you.

Vishnu Purana is linking is showing bad gateway, so you;'ll have to look it up later. But it says Ekalavya attacked Yadavas after Jarasandha's death and was killed by Krishna.

Eklavya was 1st cousin to both krishna and Pandavas. he was adopted by the Nishada king much the same as Kunti was adopted by Kuntibhoj. Yadavas were technically sutas. In fact, Shura married a Naga woman and got those 10 sons, so Vasudev and krishna were quite low caste. Pritha/Kunti was adopted by a kshatriya and Eklavya by a Nishada.

Most kings were forced to ally with Jarasandha against krishna. But once Krishna established Dwaraka, sides started forming. Eklavya and family chose to stay with Jarasandha.

If you have this info and choose to believe Eklavya going to Drona's ashram was a matter of a simple thirst for knowledge and the punishment meted out was caste-based, so be it.

That STILL doesn't answer why the language of the text is so caste-focused. There's something called 'intention of language', you get it?

What you're showing is circumstantial evidence (i.e. since Ekalavya later decided to remain with Jarasandha later so that must mean he was doing espionage). It's CLEAR and LABOURED extrapolation. Just because Ekalavya later joined Jarasandha does not automatically prove he was doing espionage all those years ago. A lot of things can change in between. Maybe there were other reasons why they could not end ties with Jarasandha, there can be a lot of political reasons. And it doesn't make sense why a prince would be sent for espionage. Royals don't use their own blood for such purpose.

And the question you've clearly ignored: WHY IS THE TEXT SO CASTE-FOCUSED? Why is Ekalavya described as low-caste and why did Drona give caste based reasons to reject him? He could've simply said "No you're from the enemy kingdom, so I'll not teach you". Why mention caste? This is where all your theories fall flat and crash in pieces. 😆

Thanks for providing this link. You have made it even clearer that everything you're struggling to prove has really no strong basis and is a result of extrapolation in its PUREST form.

Originally posted by: Mahisa22

That STILL doesn't answer why the language of the text is so caste-focused. There's something called 'intention of language', you get it?

What you're showing is circumstantial evidence (i.e. since Ekalavya later decided to remain with Jarasandha later so that must mean he was doing espionage). It's CLEAR and LABOURED extrapolation. Just because Ekalavya later joined Jarasandha does not automatically prove he was doing espionage all those year ago. A lot of things can change in between.

And the question you've clearly ignored: WHY IS THE TEXT SO CASTE-FOCUSED? Why is Ekalavya described as low-caste and why did Drona give caste based reasons to reject him? He could've simply said "No you're from the enemy kingdom, so I'll not teach you".

Thanks for providing this link. You have made it even clearer that everything you're struggling to prove had really no strong basis and is a result of extrapolation in its PUREST form.

The attack described on Krishna was just after Kamsa vadh. If Krishna and Arjuna were around same age, this would've been during gurukul time, not after.

Eklavya was already allied with Jarasandha.

As for why Drona didn't use that excuse... MBh has extensive explanations on why no one wanted to piss off Jarasandha. Thumb was the balancing act between enraging Jarasandha by killing an ally or letting a spy go.

A crime committed is still a crime no matter the caste of who does it. Stealing info was a crime then and is a crime now, no matter the excuse given by Drona for punishment.

Neither of us is saying Eklavya's request was denied.

Neither of us is saying it wasn't about military tactics and weaponry (something MBh says)

Neither of us is saying he didn't steal the info anyway (let's face it: if self-teaching were possible, he needn't have been in Kurujangala)

*I'm* saying theft was a crime, esp of military secrets. I don't know about you.

What would be the punishment Eklavya deserved for it if he were a kshatriya? Just curious. What was the punishment the emperor - Eklavya's overlord - gave spies? MBh has a nice description. He imprisoned the kings and was preparing a human sacrifice. All those kings were kshatriyas.

Anyway, we're just going around in circles with you saying I'm extrapolating and me saying you are not analyzing whatsoever. Best we stop.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

The attack described on Krishna was just after Kamsa vadh. If Krishna and Arjuna were around same age, this would've been during gurukul time, not after.

Eklavya was already allied with Jarasandha.

As for why Drona didn't use that excuse... MBh has extensive explanations on why no one wanted to piss off Jarasandha. Thumb was the balancing act between enraging Jarasandha by killing an ally or letting a spy go.

A crime committed is still a crime no matter the caste of who does it. Stealing info was a crime then and is a crime now, no matter the excuse given by Drona for punishment.

Neither of us is saying Eklavya's request was denied.

Neither of us is saying it wasn't about military tactics and weaponry (something MBh says)

Neither of us is saying he didn't steal the info anyway (let's face it: if self-teaching were possible, he needn't have been in Kurujangala)

*I'm* saying theft was a crime, esp of military secrets. I don't know about you.

What would be the punishment Eklavya deserved for it if he were a kshatriya? Just curious. What was the punishment the emperor - Eklavya's overlord - gave spies? MBh has a nice description. He imprisoned the kings and was preparing a human sacrifice. All those kings were kshatriyas.

Anyway, we're just going around in circles with you saying I'm extrapolating and me saying you are not analyzing whatsoever. Best we stop.

But how would it have been enraging Jarasandha if Drona had given actual reason for not teaching him? Didn't understand this part? Refusing to teach someone from enemy kingdom should be a valid excuse no?

Bold: That's the thing, Mahabharata DOESN'T say it was about military tactics. It says Drona made it about caste and mentions caste repeatedly. That's what I meant by 'focus'. I cannot make sense of this thing--Mahabharat mentions everything clearly---including the maneuvers of the warriors. How come it has no text or passage stating explicitly that 'military tactics was the real reason for refusal'? This makes Eklavya joining Jarasandha a coincidence rather than the main reason, it is mentioned so implicitly and in passing. Were it the main reason, Wouldn't Vyasa have made it clearer and made that the focus? This is where all the questions are raised.

The language of a text is enough to convey its intentions.

I go with the simplest explanation for the Drona-Eklavya story.So I like how the scenario was described in Ramesh Menon's Modern adaptation. Arjun was Drona's favorite and he was determined to make the former the world's best archer. And Arjun was disappointed and eaten up with jealously to see another archer (and that too a low-caste one) better than him. Drona was keeping his promise to his star pupil. Drona was also very particular about whom he taught. It was his bread and butter. If every Tom,Dick and Harry could emulate his craft, why should the Kurus continue to employ him anymore?

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

I go with the simplest explanation for the Drona-Eklavya story.So I like how the scenario was described in Ramesh Menon's Modern adaptation. Arjun was Drona's favorite and he was determined to make the former the world's best archer. And Arjun was disappointed and eaten up with jealously to see another archer (and that too a low-caste one) better than him. Drona was keeping his promise to his star pupil. Drona was also very particular about whom he taught. It was his bread and butter. If every Tom,Dick and Harry could emulate his craft, why should the Kurus continue to employ him anymore?

Ramesh menon is more like retelling author s interpretation than the cannon translation